lookup_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly states the tool retrieves and provides API reference content, but it does not explain edge cases, response format, or any limitations. For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main verb, and includes only relevant details about scope and deliverables. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. Slightly more detail on response format could enhance completeness, but it is not necessary.

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 coverage is 100% and the api_name parameter includes descriptive enum values. The description adds context by grouping APIs into client and server categories and explaining the purpose of each server API, but most of this is also present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('조회합니다') and resource ('Samsung Checkout API 레퍼런스'), enumerates the covered APIs, and outlines the deliverable (parameters, usage, code examples). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_code_snippet or get_implementation_guide, which target specific guides rather than full reference lookup.

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 implies usage when an agent needs Samsung Checkout API reference material, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_code_snippet or search_knowledge. The overlap in 'code examples' with get_code_snippet creates ambiguity, so guidance is only implied.

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