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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does not. It never states that this is a read-only enumeration, whether results are paginated or bounded, how large the full list is, or what a returned topic entry contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope tag in brackets and no filler. It is tight, though the trailing clause about comparisons and tutorials is arguably wasted words that belong to sibling tools.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and only one param leave the description as the sole source of information, yet it omits return shape, list size, and the boundary against glossary__search_glossary. For a listing tool with several close siblings, that is too thin to call it complete.

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's '可依分類篩選' is the only prose tying the category parameter to filtering behavior. The six enum values are self-explanatory labels, so the description adds modest but real value; it does not explain whether omitting category returns everything or defaults to a subset.

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 verb+resource ('列出所有名詞', list all terms) is identifiable, and the category-filter capability is stated. However, it also claims to deliver '概念比較與實作教學' (concept comparisons and how-to tutorials), which overlaps directly with the sibling tools glossary__compare_concepts and glossary__get_howto, muddying what this tool uniquely returns rather than clarifying it.

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?

No condition is given for choosing this over glossary__search_glossary, glossary__explain_term, or glossary__compare_concepts. The parenthetical only describes a filter mechanism, not when a caller should reach for a full listing instead of a search or lookup.

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