glossary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the tool exists to make terminology correct in answers; it says nothing about whether an unknown term errors or returns an empty result, or whether definitions are curated locally or fetched externally (notable given openWorldHint=true).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose stated first and the rationale second; no filler. The parenthetical example list is the only mild expansion, and it earns its place by disambiguating the term vocabulary.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that there is no output schema, yet the description never indicates what a lookup returns (definition text, translations, usage notes) or the list-all behavior when the term is omitted.

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% — the schema already states 'Persian or English term; omit to list all'. The description's contribution is listing example Persian terms, which usefully signals that Persian input is expected, but it adds no matching, casing, or partial-term behavior 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 gives a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource (Iranian market terms), with concrete example terms (صف خرید، سرانه خرید، حقیقی/حقوقی، دامنه نوسان) that pin down the domain. No sibling tool in the list provides glossary/definition content, so the tool is distinguishable in practice even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the trailing clause 'so answers use them correctly' — an agent can infer it should call this when it encounters Persian market jargon it may misrender. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or what to do if a term is missing.

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