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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating what the return contains (definition, author, citation, disambiguation) — meaningful since there is no output schema — though it says nothing about the not-found case.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses; the noun being defined is immediately followed by the acronym expansion and the return contents. Nothing is padded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return, and it lists the four components (definition, author, citation, disambiguation) including the explicit AXI-bus disambiguation case. This is complete for a zero-arg lookup tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so per calibration the baseline is 4. There is no argument syntax to explain, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 (Return) and resource (the definition of AXI), and qualifies the scope: v2.0 paper, author, citation, plus disambiguation from similarly named terms. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like axi_search_paper or axi_cite without opening any schema.

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 description implies the canonical glossary/definition lookup use case, but never states when to prefer it over axi_search_paper or axi_cite, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the purpose rather than spelled out.

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