lookup_far_clause

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it auto-resolves the latest date and returns 'parsed clean text with heading, paragraphs, and citations.' It also explains the chapter parameter for DFARS vs FAR. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the purpose and then provides structured examples. The list of common sections is a bit extra but still useful for an agent. It is appropriately sized, each sentence earns its place, and the format is clear with line breaks and bullet-like enumeration.

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?

Given the tool's intermediate complexity (multiple chapters, date handling, structured output), the description covers most inputs and outputs, especially since an output schema exists. However, it omits explanation of the date parameter and does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the section is not found). The presence of an output schema lowers the burden for return-value details, but the missing date parameter leaves a notable hole.

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 compensate for all parameters. It thoroughly explains section_id with examples and chapter with a default and DFARS example. However, the 'date' parameter is completely unexplained; while the description mentions 'auto-resolves the latest available date,' it never clarifies how a provided date interacts with that behavior. For a tool with three parameters and zero schema documentation, leaving one unexplained is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'look up the current text of a FAR or DFARS clause.' It specifies the resource (FAR/DFARS) and provides concrete examples ('15.305', '52.212-4'), making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does and distinguish it from broader content-retrieval tools like 'get_cfr_content'.

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 labels the tool as a 'Convenience tool' and gives typical section IDs, implying it is for quick clause lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like 'find_far_definition' or 'search_cfr', nor does it mention any conditions where it should not be used. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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