Get Reference Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'get' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., list, object), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words: 'Get system reference data and lookups'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the basic understanding, though it could be more informative.

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?

Given the complexity (a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reference data' includes, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like safety or permissions. With no output schema to clarify results, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it falls short.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'category' documented as 'Reference data category to filter by'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of categories or how filtering works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra help from the description.

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 the tool 'Get[s] system reference data and lookups', which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('get' + 'reference data'). However, it's vague about what 'reference data' entails (e.g., types, formats, or examples) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_account' or 'get_user', which also retrieve data. This leaves the purpose somewhat ambiguous despite being clear at a high level.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts (e.g., for configuration vs. user data), and with many sibling tools for retrieving various data types, the lack of differentiation makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately. Usage is implied only by the name, not explained.

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