uld_lookup

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

Annotations indicate readonly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds behavioral details about returned fields, but could clarify response structure (single vs list) and error handling.

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?

Concise with a brief statement and bulleted use cases; every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

Adequately describes return fields and usage context for a read-only lookup tool; missing explicit mention of response format (single vs list) but sufficient overall.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds examples (e.g., 'AKE', 'PMC') and explains filter purposes, enhancing meaning beyond 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 clearly states it looks up ULD specifications, listing specific return fields (dimensions, weights, etc.) and distinguishing from sibling tools like container_lookup and pallet_fitting_calculator.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (find specs by code, compare types, check deck compatibility) but does not mention when not to use or explicit alternatives.

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