glossary_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'matching terms with their short definitions,' indicating a read-only search. It does not mention potential errors, pagination, or authentication needs, but for a simple search tool 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the action and result, the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with 3 well-documented parameters and an implied list return, the description adequately covers the basics. It explains the output and provides workflow context. It could briefly mention that results are a list of terms, but given the schema covers parameters, this is not a significant gap.

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% with all parameters already described in the schema. The description mentions 'keyword and/or category' but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the glossary by keyword and/or category and returning matching terms with definitions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'glossary_define' by noting this tool is for discovery before calling the define tool.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover terms before calling glossary_define.' This provides clear guidance on the workflow, though it does not discuss when not to use it or mention the other sibling 'glossary_list_categories'.

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