get_terms

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits itself. It conveys only that information is retrieved and nothing about response shape, exact-match behavior, error cases, or whether this is the appropriate read endpoint. Minimal disclosure for a lookup tool.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words and is immediately readable. It loses a point only because the brevity leaves room for useful clarification that would not have hurt structure.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral contract. It does not explain what information is returned, how terms are matched, or how this differs from sibling getters, leaving an incomplete picture despite the simple one-parameter API.

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 documents 'terms' as an array of term names at 100% coverage. The description adds domain color ('Rabbis, concepts') but no additional semantics such as matching rules, allowed formats, or limits, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('terms'), and gives illustrative examples ('Rabbis, concepts'). It is clear enough for a simple lookup, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lookup tools like get_lexicon or get_topics.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. 'Specific terms' implies a targeted lookup, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool mentions, so an agent must guess how to route among similar getters.

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