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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself and discloses meaningful traits: case-insensitive matching, possible partial matches, no prerequisite graph call, and guidance to answer directly from the result. It omits any statement about result limits or error behavior for a non-matching term, keeping it below 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the alternative-routing rule; four sentences all carry information. The final sentence slightly restates the earlier 'no preliminary call' idea, which is minor redundancy.

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, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, routing, matching semantics, and post-call behavior sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds lookup behavior beyond the schema: matching is case-insensitive and may yield partial matches, which affects how the agent should interpret the single 'term' argument.

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 ('Return the KB glossary entry') and constrains it to an explicitly requested definition or exact term, which cleanly separates it from the sibling query_knowledge op=ask path.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (explicit glossary request, no preliminary graph call needed) and an explicit alternative with its triggering condition ('For a general question such as what RSI means... start with query_knowledge op=ask'), plus a stated non-recommendation about following up with graph/document searches.

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