glossary_define

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly implies a read-only lookup (returns a definition) with no side effects. The description does not mention errors, auth, or rate limits, but for a simple glossary lookup, the behavioral traits are sufficiently transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, what input it expects with examples, and what the output contains. No important aspect is missing for a glossary 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?

The schema already describes the parameter ('The term name or slug to define') with 100% coverage. The description adds concrete examples ('account suspension' or 'account-suspension'), which aids the agent in formatting input correctly. This improves upon the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's action ('Define a term'), specifies the domain ('AuditSocials Compliance Glossary'), and provides examples of input format. It is distinct from sibling tools glossary_search (which likely searches) and glossary_list_categories (which lists categories), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool returns (definition, category, platforms, related terms), which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the decision partially implicit.

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