Dream Symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details such as case-insensitive lookup, standalone execution, and the dual-tradition output, which go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear sections for workflow, input contract, and sibling-tool distinction. It stays concise while front-loading the core purpose, and the documentation link avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description provides workflow context, example inputs, a contrast with the sibling tool, and a link to the full output/error contract. It lacks explicit output field details here, but the documentation link and output-schema indication make it sufficient for this read-only lookup.

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 input schema's description for 'name' is semantically wrong, describing a person's full name for numerology instead of a dream symbol slug or display name. The surrounding INPUT CONTRACT and examples partially correct this, and response_format is well described, but one of the two parameters is actively misleading.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lookup'), a specific resource ('dream symbol'), and a clear scope ('by slug or name, case-insensitive'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from asterwise_get_dream_symbols, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' note directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the full listing tool, and the WORKFLOW section states it is standalone with no prerequisites. Example inputs further clarify the expected name values.

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