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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful epistemic context: labels are source claims, glossary terms explain them, and neither verifies quality. It also flags pagination behavior. Return shape is left unstated, but no output schema exists to compensate, so this is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the caveat and the usage note. Every sentence carries information, though the caveat sentence is slightly dense and could be phrased more directly.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, an important semantic caveat about what glossary results mean, and pagination. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only return-format detail absent.

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 all five parameters (q, lang, page, limit, category) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes that q or category are the query axes and that pagination exists, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up the published Grandet relay glossary.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like grandet_resolve_model or grandet_find_cheapest_api, though it never names or contrasts with them explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Query q or category and follow pagination' gives procedural guidance on which parameters drive the lookup and how to page, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus a sibling or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than delineated.

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