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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and dataset-boundary questions are answered. The description adds real value beyond that: the returned fields (authoritative term, domain, reliability rating, equivalents), and the fact that the source is the EU's own authoritative record, which is consistent with the closed-world annotation.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but padded: 'authoritative' appears repeatedly and the final sentence ('Used for professional translation and interpretation, using domain terminology sourced from the EU's own authoritative record') largely restates the opening sentence rather than adding information, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the input forms accepted, and what is returned (term, domain, reliability rating, target-language equivalents). Only the routing relative to sibling terminology tools and any result-count/pagination behavior are 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 description coverage is 100% and both enums are fully specified, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a small increment ('Accepts single terms or multi-word phrases') about the term parameter's input shape.

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 EU-canonical terms ... in the EU's authoritative terminology record') and scopes it to 24 official EU languages, so an agent knows exactly what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the terminology-adjacent siblings (pauhu_tm, pauhu_search, concept_crosswalk), so an agent cannot route confidently on purpose alone.

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 phrase 'Used for professional translation and interpretation' implies the use context but gives no when-to-use/when-not and names no alternative tool. With pauhu_tm (translation memory) and pauhu_search as obvious alternatives, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to infer.

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