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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it returns definitions word-for-word as on the site, includes primary sources and a link, and handles terms that have a separate article by returning an article link rather than a standalone term page. This is valuable non-obvious behavior.

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 short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The domain is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and the important edge case about articles. Every sentence earns its place.

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 small read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains the return format and the article edge case well. The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter and no explicit statement about empty or ambiguous results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that query should be a term name or synonym and gives examples, but it does not explain the limit parameter or its maximum of 10. This leaves an important part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 defines the tool as a glossary of delivery-service terms, states that it searches by name and synonyms, and specifies what it returns: verbatim definitions, primary sources, and a link. It also distinguishes the tool from article pages by explaining that terms covered by separate articles return a link to that article instead of a dedicated term page.

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 domain and examples ('слот', 'коэффициент спроса', etc.) imply use when the user asks about delivery-service terminology. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like search_articles or find_services, nor does it state when not to use it.

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