lookup_condition

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the lookup behavior and the return shape (data + Chinese name + source citation), which is useful. It does not disclose match semantics (exact vs fuzzy, first vs all matches), no-match behavior, or error conditions, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It places the action and query criterion first, then the return contents. Every word contributes to selection or invocation.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what to pass and what to expect back. The main gaps are ambiguous no-match behavior and the vague '数据' (data) portion of the return, which could matter if downstream steps depend on knowing exact result fields.

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 only describes 'query' as a string with no property description (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining what the query can be: a Chinese name, English name, or slug. This is essential semantic information for invoking the tool correctly, though it stops short of giving concrete examples or formatting constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('查' / lookup), a specific resource ('SRD 状态' / condition), and the accepted input forms (Chinese/English name or slug). It also states the return contents (data + Chinese name + source citation), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_monster, lookup_spell, lookup_rule, and translate_term.

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 this tool: whenever an agent needs an SRD condition/status by name or slug. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings (e.g., lookup_rule or translate_term), nor does it offer any exclusions or alternatives.

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