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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the return shape, case-insensitive matching, and the admin-enablement gate on controlled-release organisations. It omits pagination/limits, but nothing contradicts 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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and mode split, then return fields, then downstream usage, then the precondition. Every clause carries information, though the final controlled-release sentence is a long subordinate clause that slightly taxes readability.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, and it covers both modes, the enablement precondition, and how the returned id is consumed. For a two-parameter read-only search there is nothing an agent needs that is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds matching semantics that the schema lacks: the search is case-insensitive and matches against both term and description text. documentId is described as the document whose glossary is searched, consistent with (but not richer than) the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource with two clear modes: listing the organisation glossary a document draws on, or searching terms whose term/description contains `query`. It also discloses the returned fields (id, term, kind, description, categories), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It differentiates from the sibling add_term by pointing at it as the downstream consumer, though it does not explicitly name a competing search tool.

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?

Gives clear context for both invocation modes (omit query to enumerate, supply query to filter) and states a concrete precondition: in controlled-release organisations the tool only works once an admin enables 'Agents can fill a Glossary'. It does not state exclusions versus alternatives or error behavior, but the conditions for correct use are spelled out.

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