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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially discharges it. It usefully discloses cost/latency behavior ('Idle $0, no LLM'), tenant scoping, and that it is a GET read, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the dictionary is cached/static.

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?

It is reasonably short and the retrieval mechanics are front-loaded, but the first sentence is dense with unexplained internal jargon ('E4', 'example packs thicken per pilot', 'No invented premiums') that consumes space without informing an agent. Several phrases do not earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey the return shape. It indicates the payload is synonyms/aliases feeding search and Fact extraction, but never describes the structure or size of the returned dictionary, leaving a gap for a read tool with no output contract.

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 already 100% for the single enum parameter, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'msp' is a legacy alias for 'santral_firmasi', which the schema enum alone does not explain.

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 identifies the resource (a managed SaaS domain dictionary of tenant-scoped aliases) and its downstream use (boosting search and transcript Fact extraction), which lets an agent distinguish it from the many validation/lookup siblings. The verb is implicit (it is a GET retrieval) and the opening line is muddied by internal jargon like 'E4' and 'example packs thicken per pilot', so clarity is good but not crisp.

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 hints at the alternative write path by naming 'POST /v1/pbx/dictionary/add' (the pbx_dictionary_add sibling), which gives partial routing guidance. However, it never states when an agent should fetch the dictionary versus relying on pbx_search or pbx_facts directly, so usage is only implied.

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