academy_glossary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the fuzzy qualifier "safe public" and says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/cursor), locale handling, or result ordering — context an agent browsing a catalog would actually need.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound. But the terseness crosses into under-specification — the one sentence carries no operational detail an agent could act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a paginated browse tool with four parameters and a locale enum, the description omits how paging works, what "public" excludes, and how it relates to academy_glossary_term — leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 50%: locale and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema, but limit and cursor have no descriptions anywhere. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered pagination parameters.

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?

States a verb ("Browse") and a resource ("glossary concepts"), so the basic operation is inferable. However, "safe public" is vague marketing language, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like academy_glossary_term or academy_concepts, leaving the agent to guess which is the list vs. the detail view.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent is not told to use this for listing terms versus academy_glossary_term for fetching a single one, even though both exist in the sibling set.

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