Proper name lookup

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses what a result contains (DPPN entry with attribution and licence, links to online editions, canon passages where the name appears) and that it 'Works offline', which is consistent with openWorldHint=false. It does not specify what happens when no bundled entry exists, which caps it at 4.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core question and then enumerates return content in a single well-ordered sentence; nothing is padded. Minor looseness in 'the texts of the bundled canon where the name appears', but overall efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so (dictionary entry, attribution/licence, online-edition links, canon passages). Combined with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and complete annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool; only the empty-result case is unaddressed.

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 100%, and the schema itself carries rich per-parameter guidance, including a detailed explanation of exactWord. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the name examples already present in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Who or what is a name in the Pāli Canon') and immediately bounds the scope to proper names of persons and places, with concrete examples (Sāriputta, Anāthapiṇḍika, Sāvatthī). This distinguishes it from the word-oriented sibling lookup_pali without needing to name it.

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 context is clear: it is for proper names, and the parenthetical examples delineate that scope from dictionary/word tools. It gives no explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. 'for general Pāli words use lookup_pali'), so it stops short of a 5.

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