check_terms

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

Reports that lookups run concurrently and indicates output categories (validated, found_unvalidated, not_found). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and no destructive effects, so description adds value without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, constraints (max 25 terms), behavior (concurrent lookups), and output categories. Output schema handles return values, so this is sufficient.

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 terms parameter is implicitly described (list of terms), but the language parameter is not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail on parameter meaning and constraints.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks a list of terms against TERMDAT designations, specifying it's for communication QA. Distinct from siblings like 'search_terms' or 'translate_term'.

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?

Provides intended use case (communication QA) and a limit of 25 terms per call. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but context is clear.

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