list_glossary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search terms' and does not mention pagination, domain filtering, return format, or whether it returns a list or a single entry. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence provides purpose but is somewhat redundant; still, it does not waste words.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, what domain means, or how it differs from get_glossary. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (page, domain, keyword) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the keyword is for searching, which is already evident from the parameter name and 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 clearly states the tool searches terms in the BPS statistical glossary with the verb 'Search' and resource 'glossary terms.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_glossary, which likely retrieves a specific entry.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for understanding definitions and meanings of statistical indicators.' However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as when to prefer get_glossary or the broader search tools.

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