lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly: it states that only the key column and matched row are read, never whole sheets; it explains the confidence signals (high/ambiguous/conflict) and their consequences; and it mandates citing provenance. This goes far beyond what the schema alone could convey.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core behavior, then branches into invocation modes, confidence semantics, and a hard safety rule. The line breaks and indented sections make it scannable, and every paragraph adds necessary information rather than padding.

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 tool's complexity and the lack of annotations, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers both call styles, scope, confidence interpretation, fallback suggestions, and provenance requirements. An output schema exists for return-value structure, so not restating the full return object is acceptable. The omitted folder_path parameter is minor and does not undermine the overall completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and bare properties, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to query, key_column, key_value, return_column, and scope with examples and semantic roles. The only gap is folder_path, which is never mentioned, and the description does not explicitly state the mutual exclusivity of query versus explicit key parameters.

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 opens with 'ONE-CALL semantic lookup: finds a single cell value anywhere in the workspace and returns it WITH PROVENANCE...' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from generic query or get_cell tools. The two invocation modes (natural language vs explicit keyed) leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to choose the natural-language mode versus the explicit keyed mode, including the trigger 'Use this when the query form reports it could not parse, or for values too rare to be sampled.' It also explains how scope narrows the search. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when NOT to use lookup, so it falls just short of full alternative-based guidance.

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