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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the matching term or closest matches, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't disclose edge cases like no-match behavior or fuzzy matching details, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the return behavior. Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple glossary lookup tool.

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 glossary tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the scope (100 terms), the domain (dealership sales), and the return behavior (matching term or closest matches). The only minor gap is not specifying what happens when no match is found, but this is a minor omission for such a simple tool.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'term' as 'The term or a word in it'. The description adds that it returns the matching term or closest matches, which slightly clarifies behavior but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing plain definitions of dealership sales terms. It names the resource (glossary of 100 terms) and the action (returns matching term or closest matches). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the glossary function is distinct enough from the other tools listed.

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 usage: an agent would use this when a user asks for a dealership sales term definition. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals and sibling list make the use case fairly clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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