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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains fuzzy/exact matching, a gamma score range of 0.0-1.0, returned EU terminology, and that each match traces to a real paragraph URL. It does not cover no-match behavior or limits, so 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?

Four sentences that are front-loaded: lookup, return contents, source traceability, then CAT integration context. The final sentence partly restates the input/output pattern, but it adds the 'sourced CAT assist' framing and the description remains efficient overall.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it names the match, gamma score, EU terminology, and source URL. It also states read-only/open-world annotations context. It is nearly complete, though it omits edge cases such as no-match handling and language fallback behavior.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description says 'pass a segment' and mentions terminology, but adds no syntax, format, language-code, or domain-hint guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter work.

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 and resource: 'Look up a text segment in Pauhu TM', and defines the resource as 'aligned human-translated paragraphs from primary EU law sources'. It clearly describes the return (best exact or fuzzy match, gamma score, EU terminology) but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as pauhu_search or pauhu_translate.

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?

Provides clear context for intended use: 'Designed for CAT tool integration: pass a segment, receive the TM match + terms as a sourced CAT assist.' However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives to sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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