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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the response contains the "full definition and content," which is useful but thin — no word on behavior for a missing slug or whether the record is cached/static.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient; output shape is hinted at ("full definition and content"). The remaining gap is the absence of any pointer to dp_search_glossary for slug discovery.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `slug` parameter is documented with a concrete example ('end-to-end-encryption'). The description restates "by slug" without adding format, casing, or derivation rules, so the schema does the real work — 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?

Specific verb ("Fetch") plus specific resource ("glossary term") scoped to a single item retrieved "by slug". The singular-plus-slug framing implicitly separates it from the bulk dp_search_glossary sibling, though it never names that sibling.

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 only implied: an agent infers this is the exact-lookup path once it has a slug. There is no explicit guidance on where the slug comes from (e.g. dp_search_glossary) nor what to do when the slug is unknown, which is the main decision point an agent faces here.

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