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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by stating that the result is either an exact entry or a short list of related entries, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and free of extraneous information. It names the action and outcome without repetition.

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 a simple one-parameter read-only tool, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavior: it returns an exact entry or a short list of related entries. No further details are necessary for basic usage.

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 0% and the only parameter `term` has no description. The tool description indicates that `term` is a glossary term and implies behavior (exact vs related entries), but it does not explain matching rules, format, or edge cases, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema details.

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 uses 'Retrieve an exact glossary entry or a short list of related entries,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_site by emphasizing exact/related lookups rather than broad search.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (for glossary term queries), but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer it over alternatives like search_site or get_article. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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