lookup_funcs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'auto-detects' (input type detection), but omits details like whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to inform the agent of important runtime behaviors.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, which is efficient but lacks structure. It does not front-load key details or separate action from scope. Adding a sentence about supported formats or usage context would improve it without compromising conciseness.

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?

Given that a valid output schema exists and schema covers parameters, the description is minimally adequate for a simple lookup tool. However, it omits usage guidelines and behavioral context, leaving gaps for an agent to make informed decisions about 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 both parameters described. The description adds 'auto-detects', which clarifies that the tool will interpret queries as addresses or names, but this is a minor addition. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 'Get functions by address or name (auto-detects)' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'functions', and specifies the input types (address or name) with auto-detection. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_funcs' (list all functions) and 'analyze_function' (analyze a specific function) by indicating a lookup functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_funcs' or 'analyze_function'. It does not mention prerequisites, error scenarios, or preferred input formats. The lack of context leaves the agent without explicit usage cues.

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