adr_lookup

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds minor context (ADR scope, version) but no behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements. The description aligns with annotations, no contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, context, bullet points, and instruction. It is concise but not overly brief, effectively conveying the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates key return data (hazard class, packing group, labels, tunnel codes, etc.) and covers all parameters. It adequately sets expectations for a lookup tool.

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%, and the description reinforces the usage patterns (UN number for exact lookup, search term for name search). It adds no new information beyond the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance.

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 it looks up ADR dangerous goods information from the 2025 database, with specific scope (2,939 entries, 9 hazard classes). While it differentiates from other lookup tools by its hazmat focus, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling 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 lists specific use cases (find hazard class, search by name, get tunnel codes, check limited quantities) and instructs how to use parameters. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives from siblings.

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