lookup_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup with no apparent side effects, which is useful baseline information. However, it does not disclose behavior for unknown model names, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or what exact output shape to expect, leaving clear gaps.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the action 'Find' is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices some supporting detail.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and the kind of result ('table/family'), so an agent could attempt a first call. However, it lacks context about how to choose this tool over sibling lookup/search tools and what happens when no match is found, so completeness is only minimal.

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 one generic 'name' string with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never explicitly says 'name is the lens model name.' Still, since 'name' is the only parameter and the description mentions 'a lens model,' an agent can reasonably infer the connection. No format, pattern, or case-sensitivity details are given.

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 ('Find') and names the resource ('which table/family a lens model belongs to'), clearly indicating a lookup/mapping operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lookup/search tools or define 'lens model,' but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many related siblings such as 'lookup', 'search_lookups', or 'get_reference'. No when/when-not conditions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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