Lookup Minifigure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return data types ('detailed price data, image URL, and theme') but lacks critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and input methods, the second specifies the return data. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return data types but lacks sufficient behavioral context for a lookup tool. It doesn't explain response format details, error cases, or operational constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance despite the simple single parameter.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter's type, constraints, and purpose. The description adds minimal value by restating that the query can be 'BrickLink ID or minifigure name' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Look up') and resource ('a specific LEGO minifigure'), specifies the lookup methods ('by BrickLink ID or exact name'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on individual lookup rather than theme-based listing (get_theme_minifigures), identification (identify_minifigure), or broader search (search_minifigures).

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 individual minifigure lookup by ID or exact name, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_minifigures (which might handle partial names) or identify_minifigure (which might use different identification methods). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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