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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main added value is specifying the source and scope of definitions. It does not disclose how 'limit' affects results or what happens for unknown terms, but for a simple read-only lookup with an output schema this is not a critical gap.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with the action and object; the second sentence earns its place by clarifying scope. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with a required term, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only real gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing, which is minor for a tool whose name and description already identify its distinct resource.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description contextualizes the vocabulary domain, helping an agent choose a valid 'term', but it adds nothing about the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema's 'Default 8'.

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 action ('Define') and a specific resource (The Revenue AI Report glossary and plain-language dictionary), and clarifies the vocabulary coverage. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_* and search_* tools, but the glossary/dictionary target is enough to make the intended purpose clear.

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 coverage note ('frameworks, pillars, measures... AI and go-to-market vocabulary') implies when the tool is relevant for terminology lookups. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of search_site, get_framework, or get_publication, and no stated exclusions.

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