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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful context by listing what content is returned and what input forms are accepted, but says nothing about behavior for unknown terms (error vs empty) or response size/pagination.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the input-form note. No filler or repeated 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the term facets. The main remaining gap is undefined behavior on a missing term, which would help an agent handle failure.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the schema's URI-or-relative-path rule. It does reinforce the accepted alternates, but adds no new semantics such as path normalization or language fallback behavior.

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 and resource ("Fetch full context for a single PTPGE term") and enumerates the returned facets: definition, relations, mappings, properties, notation, level, metadata. It implicitly separates itself from ptpge_search_terms by emphasizing a single term, but never names the sibling alternative explicitly.

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 "for a single PTPGE term" implies when to use this over search_terms or browse, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g., needing a known id) is given. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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