Search Glossary

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 that results include aliases and definitions (useful since there is no output schema), but says nothing about empty results, matching behavior, or how group/project scoping interacts with results. Solid but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage rule, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and there is no padding.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (term, definition, known aliases), and the lookup/usage guidance covers the required query parameter. For a 4-param, fully-described schema this is complete enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, with group, limit, project, and query all documented, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the lookup input type but adds no meaning about scoping or the default limit beyond what the schema already states.

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 (look up) and resource (company glossary) and scopes it to terms, abbreviations, and domain concepts with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_code, search_docs, and term_list/term_record.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule — 'Use this FIRST when a query contains an unfamiliar acronym or product name' — and names the follow-up tools (search_code / search_docs), so the agent knows both the trigger and the workflow. No alternative tool competes for this exact trigger.

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