lookup_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions the tool returns detailed requirements including fees, agencies, etc., which is good. However, it does not state if the tool modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Since there are no annotations, a score of 3 is reasonable as the description adds practical context but lacks some behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of moderate length. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with what is returned. Every word is informative and necessary, with no filler. This is highly efficient.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required, 1 optional) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and the optional filter by category. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., array of objects) or pagination behavior, which may be important. With no annotations and no output schema, a score of 3 indicates adequate but not comprehensive coverage.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add much beyond the schema: it lists the enum values for activity and location implicitly but does not explain their meaning or format. The category parameter is described in the schema with its purpose. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the description adds minimal extra value, earning a baseline 3.

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 tool looks up permits, licenses, and regulatory requirements for a business activity in a specific location. It specifies the return includes fees, agencies, processing times, prerequisites, and gotchas. The verb 'look up' and resource 'requirements' are specific and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like 'get_requirement_detail' which retrieves details for a specific requirement.

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 implies the tool should be used when determining what regulations apply to a business activity in a given location. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling 'get_requirement_detail' suggests this tool is for initial lookup and the other for viewing details of a specific requirement. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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