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 behavioral disclosure. It does not state return format, whether it performs a fuzzy match or exact match, what 'resolve' means (normalization, synonym expansion, etc.), or behaviors on no-match/multiple-match scenarios. The agent is left blind to critical behavioral characteristics.

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 zero waste. It is appropriately brief for a one-parameter tool, though it could have used the brevity to add behavioral specifics without harm.

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?

No output schema exists and no annotations are provided, so the description must carry the completeness burden. For a simple single-parameter tool, it covers the basic purpose but fails to disclose match behavior, return shape, or relationship to the sibling tool. A resolution-style tool with no output specification leaves the agent unsure what it will receive.

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%, and the query parameter has a clear description with an example ('API'). The description's use of 'Resolve' hints that the query may undergo normalization beyond exact match, adding marginal value, but the parameter is already well-documented by the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (EvaTeam glossary term) with a clear outcome (return matching article content). It distinguishes from the sibling tool glossary_article_get in that this appears to resolve/search a term rather than fetch a specific article, but this differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, muddying what 'Resolve' actually means operationally.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus glossary_article_get. The description does not clarify whether this is for exploring/resolving unknown terms while the sibling is for retrieving a known article, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from tool names alone.

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