get_glossary_term

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the lookup behavior and return fields, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention error handling, rate limits, or availability. The behavior is clear but lacks extra context.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states clear purpose with examples; the second lists return fields. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the input, source, and output. Minor omission: could clarify that the term must be a slug, but the examples convey that.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameter, but the description adds value by specifying the glossary source (Rotate Pilot), giving examples of slugs, and indicating the return fields. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 states it looks up a definition from the Rotate Pilot glossary by slug, with specific examples (squawk, angle-of-attack, v-speeds) and return fields (definition, category, related terms). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_aircraft and get_metar.

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 usage for looking up aviation term definitions, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives like practice_questions or quiz_of_the_day.

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