hsm_lookup_command

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that no AWS credentials are required, specifies vendor coverage quality (authoritative vs directory-level), and lists output fields. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or whether invalid codes return empty results, but the behavioral profile is otherwise well communicated.

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 front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by examples, coverage notes, and an Args section. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains return fields and scopes the tool's coverage. It lacks explicit handling for unknown codes or an API-specific behavior note, but for a lookup utility the essential context is present.

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 compensate. It does: command_code gets concrete examples and api gets allowed values ('Excrypt', 'Standard', 'International'). It could add case-sensitivity or accepted formats, but the provided semantics are materially richer than the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('lookup HSM command code') and immediately illustrates with concrete examples (TPIN, CA, 31). It also states exactly what is returned (command name, category, description, APC operation + key type), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hsm_list_commands or hsm_analyze_code.

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 explicit triggering conditions ('Call this whenever you see an HSM command code in legacy payment code, documentation, or logs') and notes it works without AWS credentials. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like hsm_analyze_code or hsm_list_commands, so no when-not guidance is provided.

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