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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but supplies none. It does not state that this is a read-only search, whether results are paginated, or what the matching behavior is, beyond the schema's 'Search prefix' hint.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient concision — it omits the details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 two-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain matching semantics and the language filter. It explains neither, so an agent must guess.

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 only 50% — 'q' is documented as a prefix but 'language' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving the language filter completely unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Search the glossary'), which is enough to know it queries glossary content. However, it gives no differentiation from the adjacent siblings glossary, glossary_anchors, and glossary_by_slug, so an agent cannot tell when this search variant is preferable to those.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no mention of alternatives like glossary_by_slug (direct lookup) versus this prefix search. The agent is left to infer that this is for free-text lookup.

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