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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns exactly one entry or the full list, and implies read-only access, but omits pagination/size behavior for the list-all case and says nothing about ordering or error handling for unknown terms.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core lookup behavior is front-loaded before the optional-mode caveat.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (meaning plus page) and the parameter's dual behavior, which is sufficient to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around list-all volume and unknown-term handling.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the optional-parameter behavior: omitting 'term' switches the tool from single lookup to listing all entries, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Names a specific verb (return/look up) and resource (a fact entry, i.e. a term's meaning in Family Guy) plus the return payload (meaning + page). It is clearly distinct from the character/episode/season resources named in siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

States the two operational modes: supply a term to look one up, omit it to list every entry. This tells the agent when to use each form, but gives no guidance on alternatives (e.g. when to use a search tool instead) and no prerequisites.

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