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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-corpus read. The description usefully adds the corpus size and vocabulary categories, but says nothing about behavior on unknown/out-of-glossary terms or what a definition response looks like.

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 dense sentence with the action verb front-loaded and the scope detail appended; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly; only the miss/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies example values ('Korea discount', 'MACD'), so the description carries little extra parameter meaning beyond establishing that lookup is against the glossary. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully-documented single free-text parameter.

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+resource ('Get Closelooknet's definition of a financial or market term') and scopes it to a 260+ entry glossary with named coverage areas, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the market-data siblings (get_index_snapshot, get_tape, etc.). Nothing about the intent is ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It is not stated whether this is the right tool when the term might also appear in search_closelook or get_latest_view content, so the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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