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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by disclosing result ordering by name, paging mechanics, empty-result behavior for no matches or over-range offsets, a ~10-minute cache, per-IP rate limiting, and retry-on-5xx guidance. This is unusually rich operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and filter, then routing guidance, then pagination rules, then operational caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information; no 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 low-complexity read semantics, annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema (so return values needn't be re-explained), the description covers routing, pagination, filter behavior, and failure/retry modes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: query is an exact case-insensitive (not fuzzy) name substring, offset is a raw row count advanced by limit, and how next_offset should be passed back. It also confirms defaults/caps rather than merely restating them.

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 (enumerate) and resource (glossary terms) with scope (optional exact-substring name filter). It names the siblings it is not — get_term for a single definition, search_esg/search_content for full-content search — so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (survey the glossary, page through terminology) and names the alternatives for adjacent tasks (get_term for one definition, search_esg/search_content for cross-content search). No exclusions are left to inference.

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