lookup_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: pagination behavior, that all occurrences are returned, and that ambiguity is deliberately not resolved and no sandhi/grammatical processing occurs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral caveats. No filler, though the phrasing is terse enough that a little more specificity would not have hurt.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no mention of filtering or the vocative alias flag, an agent lacks enough to invoke this correctly beyond the single required query.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Non-obvious parameters like kind (dhatu/shabda/all) and include_vocative_alias are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Reverse lookup of exact stored forms' with the behavior 'returns all occurrences with pagination.' It is distinguishable from sibling search_* tools by emphasizing exact/reverse lookup, but it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives negative guidance ('No sandhi analysis or grammatical validation') and notes ambiguity is preserved, which implies when this tool is appropriate, but it does not state when to prefer it over search_shabdas/search_dhatus or what input form is expected.

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