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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds return-value context ('Returns category, plain-English definition, and related terms') that is not in any output schema, which is helpful. It does not describe error behavior when a term is unknown, so it stops short of maximum transparency.

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?

Three tightly structured sentences: purpose, coverage/return values, and when to use. It is front-loaded with the core function and the term list, while long, is directly useful for retrieval and recognition.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter glossary tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, its scope, what it returns, and when to use it, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for the single 'term' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying that terms can be acronyms or phrases and by listing many concrete examples (DD-214, C&P exam, MOS, PACT Act, etc.), adding useful matching context. It does not explain matching rules like case sensitivity or partial matches.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Translate veteran/military jargon to plain English'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like lookup_va_form or search_veteran_resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling by name or state what it is not, so it falls short of the top score.

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 provides a clear when-to-use statement: 'Use when someone asks about an unfamiliar military or VA acronym or phrase.' There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to use route_query or a broader search instead), so it is not a 5.

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