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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: matching is restricted to the term itself, never the definition body, and divergence is evaluated on both resolved and verbatim text, with the nuance that same-root pointers count as agreement. It also discloses that the output excludes definition text, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the purpose, the output shape, the matching restriction, the subtle divergence semantics, and the key parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and generally descriptive input schema, the description covers the important behavioral subtleties well. The only clear gap is that limit and cursor are left unexplained in both schema and description, but the presence of an output schema and standard pagination parameters reduce the risk.

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?

The schema already documents query, instrument, and only_divergent well, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add value by explaining the resolved-vs-verbatim divergence reasoning and the same-root agreement rule, and by reinforcing that matching never considers the definition body. However, limit and cursor remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so parameter coverage is not complete.

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 opens with a precise question—'Which instruments define this term, and do they agree?'—and defines the output as a listing of term, definers, and divergence flags with no definition text. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_defined_term, which would provide definition content rather than an instrument-level listing.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to find which instruments define a term and whether they agree. It also gives explicit guidance on the only_divergent parameter to filter for disagreements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the usage context is unmistakable.

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