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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It usefully adds what the caller receives — executive summary, statutory key points, real-world examples, FAQs, and canonical_url — which is meaningful given there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior for unknown terms, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences: the first front-loads scope and domain coverage, the second lists return contents. No filler beyond a mild promotional "500+" qualifier, and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers domain scope, source of data, and return shape — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is unstated behavior when a term is missing from the glossary.

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 the single `term` parameter is already documented with rich examples ("LPTA", "BAFO", "Ostensible Subcontractor"). The description adds no additional syntax or matching guidance (e.g., case sensitivity, slug vs. phrase behavior) beyond the schema, so 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 ("Define") and resource (acronym or term from a named 500+ term acquisition glossary), and enumerates the covered domains (FAR, DFARS, SBA, CMMC, DCAA, SLED). This is clearly distinct from siblings like lookup_commodity_codes or find_procurement_portals without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is implied: use it for terminology questions in the government contracting domain. The description never states when to prefer this over search_govcon_resources or get_govcon_playbook, nor what to do when a term is not in the glossary, so the agent must infer routing.

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