Get Glossary Term

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description reveals the output transformation: attributes are resolved from UUID keys to UI labels, empty attributes are dropped, attribute_ids remains the raw unfiltered map, and the two intentionally disagree. It also explains the separate catalog_entity_id semantic. This is substantial added behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses two short paragraphs to explain the non-obvious attribute resolution behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information, including the design rationale for the attributes/attribute_ids discrepancy, with no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to correctly interpret the result: resolved attributes, raw attribute_ids, empty-value semantics, and catalog_entity_id. No critical operational detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already documents the term_id UUID and its distinction from catalog_entity_id. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one business term in full', and immediately states a distinguishing behavior — custom attributes are named rather than hashed. This separates it from get_glossary_term_type and the glossary list/search tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 first sentence makes the context clear: use this when you need exactly one full term. The parameter schema adds that term_id is the term UUID and notes search_glossary_terms returns both IDs, providing useful disambiguation, though it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or names an alternative.

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