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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and world-openness, but the description adds meaningful behavior: at most one best match returned, optional etymology and related terms, and an explicit no-match result rather than a fabricated definition. This no-hallucination guarantee is valuable context 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with examples and return behavior following. Two sentences of moderate length, each clause contributing useful information without padding.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, return shape and safety need not be restated, and the no-match/etymology note is extra value. The one real gap is the unexplained 'pillar' parameter, which leaves a caller unable to use the tool's only optional filter confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never explains the optional 'pillar' parameter or its enum values, nor the 120-character term limit. The listed domains (yoga, kundalini, ayurveda, etc.) loosely echo the enum but are not framed as a filtering parameter, so an agent would not know it can narrow by pillar.

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 (looks up), a specific resource (definition of a single term), and the exact scope (The Holistic Care's public glossary), backed by concrete example queries. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings that search or find broader resource collections.

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 example queries ('What does aparigraha mean?', 'define yoga nidra') make the intended use case clear and demonstrate single-term lookup versus the broader search/find siblings. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given.

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