safety_standard_lookup

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the tool returns specific outputs (scope, energy source classes, certification marks), which is helpful. However, it does not discuss any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are not critical for a lookup tool but could be more transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and provides concrete examples without unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is sufficiently complete for a lookup tool, though it could mention that it covers product safety standards specifically, given the sibling context.

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 input schema has one parameter 'standard' with a clear enum and description (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing example standards and explaining the returned information, which goes beyond the schema's brief description.

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 tool looks up safety standards, lists specific standards (IEC 62368-1, IEC 60601-1, etc.), and specifies the return values (scope, energy source classes, certification marks). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools that focus on EMC, frequency bands, or other domains.

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 the tool is for safety standards, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. With many sibling tools, more guidance on when this tool is appropriate would be beneficial.

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