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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond them: unconfirmed terms are returned in 'gaps' rather than resolved, which tells the agent how to interpret an incomplete response. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the key response behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences, the capability statement first and the constraint second, with no filler. 'Never guess their meaning' is the only instruction sentence and it earns its place as agent guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the safety profile is annotation-covered. However, the unexplained 'team' parameter and the absence of any sibling routing leave gaps for a tool sitting among many retrieval alternatives.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. It never explains that 'terms' is a list of strings to resolve nor what the optional 'team' parameter scopes or how it changes results.

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 what company-specific terms mean') and constrains the source to confirmed organizational terminology, which separates it from generic lookup siblings like search or ask_knowledge. It does not name a sibling directly, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 'never guess their meaning' implies the intended situation (encountering unfamiliar org-specific terms), but the description never states when to choose this over ask_knowledge, get_entity_context, or search. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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