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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description contributes one real behavioral detail beyond them: results are restricted to "published" terms (drafts presumably excluded). Nothing is said about result size, ordering, or what happens for an unknown term.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier comes before the input spec. Appropriately sized, though it is arguably terse enough that a short clause on output shape could be added without bloat.

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 full schema coverage and complete annotations, the main remaining gap is the return value: no output schema exists and the description doesn't say whether it returns a list, how many, or in what structure. Also silent on unmatched-term behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `term` parameter is documented in the schema; the description's "exact term or alias" largely restates it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Read ... related terms") with a stated scope ("published") and input form ("exact term or alias"). It is distinguishable from search_terms, but it never defines what "related" means (synonyms, translations, associations), leaving the payload somewhat ambiguous.

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 only implied: the "exact term or alias" wording hints this is a precise lookup rather than a fuzzy search, which contrasts with search_terms. No explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative, and no prerequisites.

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