mcp_iati_define_term

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that partial matches are accepted, the lookup is in English, and the return is a table of matching glossary terms with definitions. This meaningfully describes the tool's behavior beyond the bare schema, though it does not cover edge cases like no-match behavior or multiple-term handling.

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 well structured with a clear overview, usage guidance, and explicit Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and important details like examples and partial-match behavior are included without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and expected return format, while the output schema handles formal return typing. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: the Args section explains that 'term' is a word or phrase in English, gives concrete examples ('disbursement', 'policy marker'), and notes that partial matches are accepted. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 clear verb ('Explain') and resource ('an IATI term according to the standard's glossary'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also lists glossary categories, which helps scope what the tool covers. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the glossary-lookup function is distinct from the other data-search and filtering tools.

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 explicitly says it is 'useful for questions like "what does X mean?" or "what is the difference between X and Y?"' and advises calling it once per term. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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