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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain restriction (terms appearing on material pages) and hints at return content, but says nothing about behavior for unknown terms or how lookups are matched.

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?

One tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and examples at the end where they aid recognition. Slight awkwardness in the mid-sentence qualifier 'used on material pages' but no wasted content.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does state the shape of the return value ('plain-language definition'). Only edge-case behavior (term not found, ambiguity between expansions) is left unstated.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single required parameter, the schema already documents the input fully, including the same ARC/SoC/adiabatic examples. The description adds no format or matching guidance beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a concrete outcome — a plain-language definition of a technical term or abbreviation — and scopes it to material pages with examples (ARC, SoC, adiabatic). It is distinguishable from get_material and list_properties, though the overlap with resolve_designation is not addressed.

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 by the resource type; there is no explicit 'use this when…' or routing against siblings like resolve_designation, which a reader could easily confuse with a term lookup. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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