IvedaAI: look up a request/response schema definition

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world=false. Description adds behavior around omitting name to list all definitions and confirms return type. No contradiction, and the description supplements annotations well.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, each sentence serves a purpose. Efficient and readable with zero filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and listing behavior completely, enabling correct invocation.

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% with the 'name' parameter fully described including example and omit behavior. Tool description reinforces the same but adds no new dimension beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'looks up' with resource 'full JSON schema for a named IvedaAI API definition', provides a concrete example, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that represent actual API resources.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a tool's body schema summary is truncated or need exact shape of a nested field. Also gives alternative usage of calling with no name to list all definitions.

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