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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: multilingual term matching on input, a two-part response (name in each language plus meaning), and an explicit no-match fallback that lists known concepts. It doesn't say how fuzzy the matching is, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, accepted input forms, then output and fallback. The core verb is front-loaded and every clause adds usable information, including the multilingual examples that would otherwise be a surprise.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends effort describing the return value (name per language plus meaning) and the empty-result behavior. For a single-argument lookup tool this is close to complete; only the exact matching semantics and response shape details are absent.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning. It does: the term may be a canonical name in any Refapp language (e.g. "Kandidat", "Prosjektmal") or a short natural-language question naming the concept. Only the 100-character limit is not surfaced, which is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Explains what a basic Refapp concept is") and enumerates concrete concept examples (project, candidate, referee, questionnaire, report, project template), which makes the scope tangible. It stops short of naming the near sibling explain_status to make the boundary explicit, so it falls one notch below full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied through the input forms it accepts (a term in any Refapp language, or a short question naming the concept) and through a fallback case. However, it never says when an agent should prefer get_help_article or search_help over this tool, so the routing decision against siblings is left to inference.

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