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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it does excellently: it discloses required fields (title, shortDefinition), max lengths, drafts behavior ('find WITHOUT draft:true returns published main-table state only'), public access via /api/agents, MCP capabilities, and a critical warning that delete is permanent and bypasses the admin Trash. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 a single dense paragraph covering many aspects: fields, constraints, drafts, public access, MCP capabilities, and a deletion warning. It is not well-structured with sections or bullet points, and while each sentence contributes information, the flow is somewhat jumbled. It is informative but not concise in format.

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 find tool with no output schema, the description provides rich context: it explains field constraints, locale handling, autolinking behavior, draft querying, and permanent deletion. It covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly, though it could mention pagination defaults (but schema already does). The completeness is high given the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters (id, page, sort, depth, draft, limit, where, locale, select, fallbackLocale) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters; it focuses on glossary field constraints, not query parameters. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents them.

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 clearly states the tool finds glossary entries ('Public glossary of terms.') and explains key fields and behaviors. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling find tools, the resource type is unambiguous. It's specific enough to distinguish from findBrand, findPosts, etc., by the glossary context.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions features like drafts and public read, but does not say 'use this when you need glossary terms' or exclude other tools. The usage context is implied by the name, but the dimension requires explicit guidance.

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