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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context about the glossary's scope (260+ entries, categories, coined terms). It does not contradict annotations and adds value by describing what the tool accesses.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Get Closelook's definition'). The parenthetical list of glossary categories is relevant and informative, though slightly dense, but every part serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently explains purpose and scope. It does not specify the return format, but 'definition' implies a textual answer, which is adequate for this 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?

The input schema provides a complete description of the 'term' parameter, including examples (e.g., 'Korea discount' or 'MACD'), so the description does not need to add more. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline.

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 retrieves Closelook's definition of a financial or market term from its 260+ entry glossary. It specifies the resource (glossary) and various categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_indices and get_index_snapshot.

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 the tool is for looking up term definitions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_closelook. No exclusions or conditional usage are mentioned.

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