lookup_engine_api

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'look up' aligns with read-only behavior. It adds useful context about the reviewed/community nature and the included coverage fields, but does not disclose output format, pagination, errors, or other operational behavior beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence immediately states the action and resource, then packs the distinguishing output attributes into a short modifier list. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only lookup with three required parameters, the description is reasonable, but it does not specify return structure and offers no explicit guidance among the many sibling lookup/search tools. The listed coverage attributes partially compensate for the missing output schema, but an agent still has to infer important selection and response details.

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 already documents channel and version, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds example values for name via 'CreateFrame or hooksecurefunc' and hints at version/build semantics through 'explicit build coverage', but it does not explain the interaction between channel and version or define what 'latest' resolves to.

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 the specific verb 'Look up' and names a clear resource: a 'reviewed community engine contract'. Concrete examples like CreateFrame and hooksecurefunc, plus the distinguishing attributes 'source revisions, licensing, and explicit build coverage', make this meaningfully distinct from generic siblings like lookup_api or lookup_resource.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this is for looking up reviewed engine contract details rather than raw API or resource lookups. However, the description never explicitly names any alternative sibling or states when not to use this tool, which is a real gap given the large sibling set.

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