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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the semantic purpose, saying nothing about what happens with an empty glossary, how the limit caps results, or whether terms are versioned — gaps that matter less here because the annotations carry the behavior.

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?

One sentence, action first, rationale second, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing either the resource or the motivating use case.

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 simple read-only, one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource and its intended use. A brief note on the returned shape (a term list) and on behavior when the glossary is empty would close the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single optional limit parameter with 100% schema description coverage (default 100, max 500), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description contributes nothing about limit — no hint about truncation or how to page beyond the cap — which is acceptable at baseline 3 when coverage is 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?

States a specific verb ("Return") and a specific resource ("the proper nouns Lunara has learned for this org"), plus the downstream purpose of consistent spelling. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling lunara_glossary_extract, so an agent must infer that this reads an existing glossary rather than building one.

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 trailing clause "so names are spelled consistently across tracks" implies the context in which to call it (before translation/rewrite/segmentation work), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion pointing at lunara_glossary_extract as the alternative when no glossary exists yet. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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