Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations or output schema, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the return components (meaning, how it is worked out, analogy, caveat), the scope of coverage, and the non-advice framing. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but those are low-risk for a read-only glossary lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, and the query behavior follows immediately. The long parenthetical enumeration of terms is dense but earns its place by communicating coverage; otherwise the description is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what the tool covers, what it returns, how to invoke it, and a clear non-advice caveat. The remaining gap is not naming sibling alternatives, which is minor at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single optional query parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including examples and the omit-for-index behavior. The description adds the phrasing 'words of the question' and repeats the omit instruction, but does not introduce syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource — the glossary of every figure, column, label, and badge on rbxinvest.com — and specifies what it returns: plain-word meaning, derivation, analogy, and caveat. That is far more precise than a restated title and clearly distinguishes it from guide-style or article-search siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: pass the words of the question as query, or omit it to get the list of terms by page. It also draws a scope boundary by stating the tool is not advice. It stops short of naming alternatives such as find_articles or get_started_guide, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.