word_find_many

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: case-insensitive matching, per-term independent results, and that unknown/misspelled terms yield an empty `results` list rather than altering the overall structure. It also explains result ordering. This goes beyond mere annotation repetition, though it doesn't discuss any error scenarios or rate limits, which are minor for a read-only batch lookup.

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 efficiently structured: a concise purpose sentence, a note on equivalence and benefit, then clear Parameters and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information without fluff. The key behavioral notes are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only batch lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves for edge cases (unknown terms), and the structure of the return. The annotations cover safety, and the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 `terms` parameter as 'The list of terms to look up exactly' (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying that each term is processed independently, results are per-term, and matching is case-insensitive. This enhances understanding of how the parameter is interpreted, providing value beyond the schema's simple 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search for multiple terms by exact name (case-insensitive) in the ASD-STE100 Issue 9 vocabulary in a single call.' It clearly states the tool's scope (multiple exact terms) and differentiates from the sibling `word_find` by explicitly noting it is equivalent to calling `word_find` once per term but avoids round-trips. This makes 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 provides direct usage guidance: it tells the agent to use this tool when multiple terms need to be looked up exactly, instead of calling `word_find` repeatedly. It even names the alternative (`word_find`) and the condition for choosing this tool (multiple terms). This satisfies the requirement for explicit when-to-use guidance.

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