lookup_abend_code

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the content returned (explanations, common causes, remediation steps), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention result size, pagination, or ordering, so it is not fully rich.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and examples, then the secondary catalog/search mode. No wasted words.

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?

With four optional parameters at full schema coverage and safety annotations present, the description needs only to convey returned content, which it does (explanations, causes, remediation). Lacking an output schema, it could still say more about result shape, but overall it is complete enough to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a general mention of catalog search and category filtering, which mirrors what the schema already says; no extra syntax or format detail is provided beyond that baseline.

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 verb ("look up") and resource ("z/OS abend codes") with concrete examples (S0C7, S806, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from the sibling summarize_abends, which also concerns abends, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 phrase "Supports catalog search and category filter" implies that omitting a code lists/searches the catalog, and the schema confirms "Omit to list or search the full catalog." However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative (e.g., summarize_abends for aggregate views), and no statement of when not to use this tool.

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