get_term

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuine behavioral detail: case-insensitive name matching, automatic resolution to a C code scoped to the supplied codelist, and a graceful fallback returning similar candidate names when no match exists. It does not discuss error conditions beyond that, which is minor for a read-only 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a numbered list of accepted term forms and a worked example. The example slightly restates the parameter rules already given in the numbered list, but overall it is compact and easy to scan.

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 4-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (definition, submissionValue), how the loose term input is interpreted, and what happens on a miss. It stops short of describing the overall response shape or how multiple candidate matches are ordered, which would be the last gap for an agent to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the two accepted term forms with concrete examples and the case-insensitive resolution semantics plus failure behavior. The raw parameter's slim-vs-full payload behavior is left entirely to 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 uses a specific verb+resource (获取指定术语的详细信息) and names the payload fields returned (定义、submissionValue). It hints at its distinct role by describing name-to-code resolution inside a codelist, which separates it from list-style siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_codelist_terms or get_codelist_submission_values.

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 conveyed only by example ('package=..., codelist=..., term=...') and by the note that a term name resolves within the codelist, with nearby candidates returned on failure. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to get_codelist_terms for enumeration or get_codelist_submission_values for bulk submission values; the codelist-ID discovery advice lives in the schema, not the description.

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