cdp_lookup_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the required parameters and that the lookup request must be a JSON string, it fails to describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication/permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the typical response format looks like. The description provides only basic operational instructions without behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and parameter requirements. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, the second sentence could be clearer about which parameter requires JSON string format.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 3 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It covers the basic operation but lacks context about authentication, error handling, performance characteristics, and relationships to sibling tools. The 0% schema description coverage exacerbates these gaps, making the description incomplete for effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It mentions that 'field' is required and that 'body' should be a JSON string lookup request, but provides no semantic context for 'resource_name' or 'tenant_id'. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid resource name, what fields are available for lookup, what the JSON body should contain, or when tenant_id is needed versus optional.

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 clearly states the verb ('Lookup') and resource ('distinct values for a field in a DW entity resource'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on field value lookup rather than general data retrieval or entity management. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'cdp_get_dimension_values' or 'cdp_lookup_audience_defs'.

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 minimal usage guidance by stating 'Requires the field name to look up' and format instructions for the body parameter. However, it offers no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_get_dimension_values' or 'cdp_lookup_audience_defs', nor does it mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or constraints beyond the basic parameter requirements.

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