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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that entries are bilingual and cite the regulation/specification, which is useful content context, but says nothing about match behavior, fallback when a term is not found, or result limits.

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 naming the resource, the language scope, and the citation behavior, followed by compact examples. No filler, though the parenthetical language note slightly duplicates the lang enum in the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter glossary lookup the description covers what the tool returns and what to pass; only the match semantics of query remain unaddressed.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: '(German/English)' maps to the lang enum and the example terms clarify what kind of strings query accepts. However, it never states whether query is an exact term match, case-insensitive, or free-text, nor how lang affects the result.

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 resource — definitions of EUDI Wallet and eIDAS terms — with the added scope that entries carry references to the regulation or specification, and it gives concrete example terms. It is easy to tell apart from siblings like get_standard or search_articles, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from 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?

Usage is implied by the example terms ('PID', 'relying party', 'WUA'): call this when you need to resolve a domain term. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g. search_articles) if no glossary entry exists.

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