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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the versioned nature of the glossary and the caching contract, plus a link to the full API reference — though it says nothing about response size for the no-argument case.

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?

Two dense sentences plus a reference URL; the enumeration of vocabulary terms is slightly long but front-loads the purpose and the invocation modes well. Nothing is wasted, though the term list could be trimmed without loss.

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 single optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema and no siblings, the description covers purpose, invocation, and caching. The main gap is that it does not sketch the shape of the returned glossary entry, which an agent consuming the output would benefit from.

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 100% and the single `term` parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description reinforces that omitting it returns everything, but adds no syntax or alias-resolution detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Tango vocabulary') and enumerates the kind of entries the glossary holds (Epic, Feature, Task, lease, claim, handoff). No sibling tool covers glossary lookup, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Explicitly covers both invocation modes: no arguments for the full versioned glossary, or `term` to resolve a single word. It also tells the agent to cache by version and re-read on change, which is actionable operating guidance rather than inference.

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