reference

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation and 'plain-text' discloses the return format, but it does not explicitly state side-effect profile, behavior on unknown queries, or dependence on an active domain beyond the word 'active.'

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?

A single, direct sentence conveys the action, target, and output with no filler or redundancy. The key scoping detail ('active ida-domain API') is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool, this is mostly adequate, but the description leaves some gaps: no output schema exists, yet return details are only 'plain-text IDA reference,' and there is no mention of no-match behavior or what 'active ida-domain API' precisely means.

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%: the query parameter is already documented as 'Class, method, or reverse-engineering concept.' The description adds no material meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific action ('Look up'), a specific resource ('the active ida-domain API'), and a concrete output ('plain-text IDA reference'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that manage databases or execute Python.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving IDA reference information about a class, method, or concept. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to route to it.

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