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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the return content (Chinese translation plus explanation), but says nothing about behavior for unknown/ambiguous terms, whether Chinese input is accepted, or any rate/permission constraints.

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 compact sentence with a bracketed category tag up front and examples at the end. No wasted words, though the tag consumes some of the limited space.

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-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and example inputs, but leaves gaps around edge cases (unknown terms, Chinese vs English input) that an agent would need to handle.

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 0% and the single 'term' parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description partially compensates by giving example English card-face terms, clarifying the expected input format, but the parameter is not fully specified.

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 verb (查) and resource (符文戰場英文卡面名詞的中文譯名與說明), with concrete examples (Might, Rune, Conquer) that pin down the domain. It is distinguishable from riftbound siblings like get_faq or search_rules, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 '[新手指南]' tag and the example terms imply the context (encountering an English Riftbound card term), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no comparison to glossdary-style siblings such as glossary__explain_term or riftbound__search_rules.

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