libredesk_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description stays consistent with them. It adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the fields each action returns (id/name/email for agents, channel and enabled state for inboxes), and even flags agents() and teams() as [undocumented], which is honest about known gaps.

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?

A single scoping sentence followed by a scannable bulleted action list — front-loaded and free of filler. The [undocumented] tags are slightly unusual self-commentary but they are short and informative rather than noise.

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?

There is no output schema, so listing the returned fields per action is exactly the compensating detail an agent needs, and it covers six of eight actions fully. The remaining gap is the custom_attributes(...) signature and the role of the profile parameter, both of which the description leaves to the schema.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the schema only labels the action enum as 'Action.' while the description spells out the meaning of all eight enum values and their outputs. It does not explain the profile or applies_to parameters, and the custom_attributes(...) ellipsis leaves its extra arguments unspecified.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (look up) and resource set (ids of agents, teams, inboxes, settings), and the action list makes the scope concrete. It is clearly distinct from siblings like libredesk_publish, libredesk_delete and libredesk_articles, though it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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 enumeration of actions rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this before any id-taking operation, but nothing says when to prefer this over libredesk_articles or libredesk_help_center, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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