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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already establish this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the 'full definition and content', giving the agent a good sense of the response. No contradictions with annotations. It does not mention edge cases like not-found behavior, but that is not required given the simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool does, how the term is identified, and what is returned, leaving no major gaps for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 already provides 100% coverage, including a description and example for the slug parameter ('end-to-end-encryption'). The description merely says 'by slug', adding no extra information beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single glossary term's full definition and content') and the identifier ('by slug'). This distinguishes it from dp_search_glossary, which searches for terms, and other sibling tools that retrieve guides or tools.

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 used when you know the exact slug of the glossary term you want to retrieve. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear: this is the direct-fetch by slug tool, while searching is handled by dp_search_glossary.

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