Look up a domain term

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

This is a strong disclosure of behavior beyond the annotations. It reveals that when a term has no definition, the server records the gap and reports the term as undocumented. This explains the readOnlyHint:false annotation even though the primary action is a lookup. It also states the output length as 2 to 3 lines, which is useful and not visible elsewhere.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative context is given next, and the behavioral caveat is last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states what is returned, the output length, when to use it, and the side-effect behavior for undocumented terms. The annotations provide idempotency, and the description explains the non-read-only aspect. Nothing essential is missing.

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 both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the concept of 'domain term' and 'aggregate root or entity', but adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already state. It does not clarify project semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the business definition of a domain term in a project'. It is easy to tell this is a read/lookup operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools save_term and list_missing_terms, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage context: use it when you need the meaning of an aggregate root or entity, and call it instead of reading javadoc or a README. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer save_term or list_missing_terms, but it clearly scopes the intended use case and even warns against using DTOs or internal value objects via the schema.

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