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

With no annotations to help, the description discloses the output ('definition and renderings in all 9 site languages') and the optional-parameter behavior ('Pass no term to list all glossary terms'). The verb 'Look up' and the 'get_' prefix imply a non-destructive read operation, though it does not discuss rate limits or error conditions. For a simple lookup, this is adequate.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action, resource, and output; the second explains the no-argument behavior. Each phrase adds useful information: examples, site-language count, and the list-all-terms option.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description adequately covers both input modes and the return content (definition and translations). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to 'project glossary', leaving no meaningful gaps for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single optional parameter 'term' (type, description, and omit-to-list-all behavior). The description adds examples (Elohim, Yahweh, precession, World Ages) and the 'core Wheel of Heaven term' context, providing marginal added value. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Look up' and identifies the resource: 'a core Wheel of Heaven term ... in the project glossary'. It names examples (Elohim, Yahweh, precession, World Ages) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping to 'project glossary' rather than entries, passages, sources, or traditions.

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 its use case: when you need a glossary term's definition and translations. It also states the no-argument behavior ('Pass no term to list all glossary terms'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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