lookup_resource

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns declarations or references with source locations, does not prove runtime availability, and warns that older snapshots may lack coverage. No contradiction with 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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core action, then give return behavior and a caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, its exact-match scope, its key limitation, and a data-coverage warning. Combined with the well-described schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 descriptions already cover query, offset, channel, and version (about 67% coverage). The description reinforces query as an exact resource name and lists the kind enum, but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not discuss limit or pagination semantics.

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?

States a specific action ('look up an exact Blizzard source resource name') and enumerates the resource kinds, with a clear contrast to runtime/API lookup tools via 'does not prove runtime availability or a callable API contract.' This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like lookup_runtime_resource and lookup_api.

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 'exact' qualifier signals exact-match lookup rather than fuzzy search, and the runtime/API caveat implies when this tool should not be chosen. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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