lookup

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain behavior for missing keys, duplicate keys, exact matching, or the return format, which is especially important because there is no output schema.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with no filler; the core action and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits failure behavior and return semantics beyond 'one value', and it does not relate the tool to the reference-table family of sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for table_id and key. It only implies their roles via 'reference table' and 'one value' without clarifying key format, whether matching is exact, or how table_id identifies a table.

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 clear verb ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('one value from a reference table'), so the core action is identifiable. However, it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like get_reference or search_lookups, and 'reference table' is left undefined.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_lookups, run_select, or get_reference. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be preferred or when it should not be used.

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