rules_of_acquisition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says only 'Look up', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state what is returned, how conflicting parameters (e.g., both random and rule_number) are handled, or what happens with no parameters. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name and schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that clearly enumerates the tool's functionality without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning, and it is shorter and more scannable than a longer multi-sentence explanation would be.

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 lookup tool with three optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers the principal usage modes. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the return format or behavior for empty/conflicting inputs, which would make it fully complete. It is adequate for most agent invocations but leaves a few edge cases undocumented.

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 fully documents all three parameters (random, search, rule_number) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description restates these modes in prose but does not add any new detail about parameter formats, validation, or precedence. It provides marginal semantic value on top of the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Look up') and a specific resource ('Ferengi Rules of Acquisition') while listing three distinct modes: by number, randomly, or by keyword. This is specific and immediately distinguishes the tool from the sibling Star Trek lookup tools.

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 when to use the tool (whenever a user needs a Rule of Acquisition) and describes the three invocation modes, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like search_memory_alpha or get_article. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance, so it offers only implied usage context.

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