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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (term, definition, and link), which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not mention nuances like fuzzy matching or empty results, but for this simple read-only operation the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it states what is searched, what is returned, and the alternative for full details. The only minor gap is lack of explicit pagination/result-count behavior, but the limit parameter covers this.

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% with both parameters (limit and query) described directly in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool searches the privacy & security glossary for defined terms, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('glossary'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the full-entry alternative dp_get_glossary_term.

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?

It explicitly names an alternative (dp_get_glossary_term) for full entries, implying when to use search vs. retrieve. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with other search tools (e.g., dp_search_guides, dp_search_tools).

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