Look up filter values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost/network context ('Free and local: no network call, no credits') and return shape ('Returns up to `limit` matches'), which is meaningful value beyond the annotations, though it stops short of error or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost, then workflow guidance; every sentence carries distinct information 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?

For a simple 3-parameter local lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the full taxonomy set, zero-cost/offline behavior, workflow placement, and the shape of the result. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by demonstrating the input-to-output mapping ('vp eng' returns 'VP Engineering'), clarifying what 'normalized' actually means for the query parameter. It does not elaborate on kind or limit beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb (look up) plus a precisely scoped resource (normalized filter values/taxonomies), and it enumerates the six taxonomies so an agent knows exactly what it resolves. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the search siblings by framing itself as a value-normalization utility rather than a search.

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 call it ('before sdr_search_people or sdr_search_companies') and the goal ('turn plain-English ICP terms into exact values'), naming the relevant siblings directly. The workflow position is unambiguous.

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