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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses return contents, exact-first then substring matching, unknown-term handling with a sample of available terms, and tier availability. It stops short of describing the full response format or any access/error details, hence not a 5.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose first. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the six-sentence length and multiple parentheticals make it slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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 one-optional-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers optional invocation, returned data, matching semantics, unknown-term behavior, and the relationship to the sibling tool. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the optional `term` parameter with examples and the omit-for-overview behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational meaning by explaining matching behavior and unknown-term fallback, going beyond 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?

The description states a specific action ('Look up WEO Contribution Architecture vocabulary') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It also differentiates this tool from its sibling get_methodology by noting the CA governs participation while the Methodology Manual governs what qualifies.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use to resolve participation vocabulary') and names the alternative ('get_methodology') with the distinction between participation and qualification. It also gives concrete invocation guidance: omit `term` for programme status.

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