character_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned (rank, species, affiliation, biography) which is helpful, but it does not mention behavior for missing characters, edge cases, or any limitations. It is a read-oriented lookup, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get details about a Star Trek character') and efficiently lists the key return fields. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns. It explains the scope (character) and the expected output fields. It could be improved by noting behavior for invalid inputs, but overall it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter 'name', providing the meaning and examples. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get details about a Star Trek character'. It specifies the resource (character) and lists concrete return fields (rank, species, affiliation, biography). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like species_info or get_starship.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use when you need character details. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for species-specific queries, use species_info). No exclusions or context is provided beyond the basic purpose.

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