lookup_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a lookup (read) operation without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal disclosure.

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 short and structured with Args and Returns sections. However, the Returns section is redundant given the output schema. Could be more efficient but not overly verbose.

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 it's a simple lookup with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks details on domain parameter behavior, error cases, and behavior if symbol is not found. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning beyond parameter names. It merely lists name and domain without explaining valid values, format, or how domain affects results. Lacks examples or clarification.

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 clearly states it looks up the semantic meaning of a symbol, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_symbol (create) and check_symbol_conflicts (check for conflicts).

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 implies usage for retrieving symbol meaning but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_symbol_conflicts or list_domain_symbols. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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