Lookup Technical Entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It lists return categories, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are required, or how project confirmation behaves.

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 two short sentences and is front-loaded with the lookup purpose. "Zero-hallucination" is somewhat promotional, but it does not materially waste space.

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?

An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values in detail. However, for a four-parameter lookup with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete because it leaves the project-related parameters and usage conditions unexplained.

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% with four parameters. The description only implicitly covers the required identifier and says nothing about project_path, confirm_project, or project_context, so it does not compensate for the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: lookup a specific technical identifier/entity. The phrase "specific technical identifier" distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implied by "specific technical identifier" versus a general search, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It also does not explain when the project-related parameters should be supplied.

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