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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds that results are 'plain-English definitions' and gives examples of terms, which provides useful but not critical behavioral context. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, 18 words, directly states purpose and examples. No wasted text. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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 search tool with annotations, the description adequately covers what it does and returns. However, it omits mention of pagination or the limit parameter's role, which could be clarified for completeness. Overall sufficient given low complexity.

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 50%: query has a description, but limit does not. The tool description does not mention parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. For a 2-parameter tool, the description should clarify the limit parameter's effect or provide examples.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'AdvertisingProtocols glossary', its scope (130+ ad tech terms with examples like DSP, SSP, RTB), and the output format (plain-English definitions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_protocols by specifying the glossary context.

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 description implies when to use (searching ad tech glossary terms) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like get_protocol or list_mcp_servers are not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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