academy_glossary_term

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact — results are the public projection, stripped of internal recipe references — but says nothing about missing-term behavior or how locale affects the lookup.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the distinguishing qualifier placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 are covered, and annotations handle safety. What remains unaddressed is meaningful for a 3-parameter lookup tool: what 'public' excludes relative to the premium/recipe siblings, and whether a missing term is an error or an empty result.

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?

With 67% schema coverage and clear schema descriptions for locale ('transport locale; not a service input field') and idempotencyKey, the schema does most of the work. The description adds no meaning to 'term' itself — no format, case-sensitivity, or how the pattern constraint relates to lookup.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a public glossary term') plus a scope qualifier that separates it from internal/recipe-facing data. It does not name the closest sibling (academy_glossary, presumably the listing version), so an agent still has to infer the singular-vs-collection split.

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 phrase 'public glossary term without internal recipe references' implies the lookup case and hints the tool omits non-public content, but it never says when to prefer this over academy_glossary, academy_recipe, or academy_search, nor what to do if the term is unknown.

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