Отримати термін глосарію — hotline.finance

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the return fields (title, explanation, related questions) and the data source (hotline.finance), but does not disclose behavior such as error handling when a slug is invalid or not found. This is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then list return values and the alternative tool. Every sentence adds useful information with no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it names the source, the identifier, the return fields, and directs users to get_glossary_list for the full list. It lacks details about error responses or exact output structure, but given the low complexity and the absence of an output schema, this is sufficient. A score of 4 reflects minor gaps rather than major omissions.

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 fully documents the 'slug' parameter with an enum of all valid values and a description—100% schema coverage. The description only says 'за його slug' (by its slug), which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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: retrieving a detailed insurance glossary term by slug from hotline.finance. It specifies the verb (Отримує), resource (термін глосарію страхування), and key fields returned (назву, пояснення, пов'язані питання). It also distinguishes the tool from a list tool by referencing get_glossary_list for obtaining slugs.

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 mentions the alternative get_glossary_list, indicating that this tool is for retrieving a single term's details while the list tool is for browsing available slugs. Although it does not state explicit exclusions, the guidance is clear for typical use cases. The sibling FAQ tools are unrelated, so no confusion exists.

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