aras_lookup_error

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the catalog contains all server message templates, that matching is by substring, and that results include the code and meaning. It does not cover match limits or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the purpose and add one crucial behavioral detail. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to start searching and says the result will trace back to code and meaning. However, it leaves the exact result shape unspecified and never explains 'limite', so a caller still has some ambiguity about both limit semantics and return format.

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 already documents 'testo' with an example, and the description mostly restates that substring idea. The optional 'limite' parameter has no schema description and is never mentioned in the description, so with only 50% schema coverage the agent must infer its meaning from the name and default.

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 names a specific resource (Aras UserMessage catalog), a specific action (search), and the intended goal (deciphering an opaque error). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings such as aras_search.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use when an error from Aras is opaque, and search by part of the received text to recover code and meaning. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, 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.