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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new disclosure: unmatched words return in not_available, and submitted words are recorded (word plus day only, no personal data) for the owner's consideration. That privacy/telemetry note is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey; only the output shape of matched terms is left implicit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core mapping behavior, then the not_available outcome, then the data-handling note. No filler and no restatement of the name or schema constraints.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and call correctly, including what happens to misses. A brief note on the returned structure for matched terms (e.g. term-to-key pairing) would close the last 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?

The single terms parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the input as plain language words, supplies four illustrative examples, and explains that misses come back in not_available. Length and count limits live in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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: mapping plain words to atlas measure keys, with concrete examples ("internet", "cancer", "crime", "cost of living"). The mention that unmapped words surface in not_available makes the transformation explicit, and the lookup/translate nature is clearly distinct from listing measures or requesting new ones.

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?

Usage is implied: give it plain words when you need measure keys. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_measures or request_measure, nor does it mention prerequisites or the 10-term cap as a reason to batch or split calls. The guidance is inferable but not spelled out.

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