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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned content (abstract, definition, cross-references), which helps, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown term (error vs empty result) or whether the read is side-effect free.

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 compact sentence with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. Sized appropriately for a simple single-parameter lookup.

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 single-param, annotation-free, output-schema-free lookup, the description covers what it returns and how the term may be specified. The only meaningful gap is the not-found/error behavior.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does add that the term may be supplied as a key or a name, which is real meaning beyond the bare string schema, but it gives no guidance on accepted formats, casing, or ambiguity handling for the two modes.

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 action and resource: retrieves the full dictionary entry for a term, and enumerates the parts of the entry (abstract, definition, cross-references). This is clearly a single-term fetch, distinguishable from list_all_terms and search_terms, though it never names those siblings.

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 phrase 'by key or name' implies direct lookup rather than searching, which is useful, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_terms or get_related_terms. Usage is only implied.

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