lookup_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the traversal behavior (empty name returns children of parent), which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about output shape or result limits.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is stated first and the parameter behavior second. Nothing is redundant.

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 3-parameter lookup with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the parameter interplay but does not document the full set of valid kind values or what a returned code list looks like. Adequate but with visible gaps given the complete absence of structured parameter documentation.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does reasonably well: it implies kind takes 'area' or 'jobcat', and it explains the interaction between name and parent (empty name = list next level; empty parent = top level). It omits the default values and exact accepted kind strings, keeping it from a 5.

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 pairs a specific verb (查/look up) with a specific resource (地區 area codes, 職類 jobcat codes), so an agent understands this is a reference-code lookup tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search_jobs or get_job, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives implied usage: empty name lists the next level under parent, and empty parent means top level. That tells the agent how to invoke it for hierarchy traversal, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the sibling lookup/search tools.

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