lookup_reference_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses that this is a static lookup, requires no network and no API key. This is meaningful behavioral information, but it does not mention error handling or behavior for invalid/unknown codes.

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 purpose, then domains, then a pragmatic usage directive. There is no filler and every sentence earns its place.

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, static lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the accepted domains, typical usage timing, and its local nature. The main omission is not describing the exact return format; however, the output scope feels obvious and the description still is complete.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by contrasting 8A ('8(a) Competed') with 8AN ('8(a) Sole Source'), which helps the agent understand the meaning of the lookup before filtering or reporting.

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 uses a specific verb (look up / list) with a clear resource (official FPDS descriptions for procurement reference codes) and enumerates the five accepted domains. It differentiates well from the sibling USASpending data-query tools, which are named around 'get'/'search' rather than local code lookup.

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 explicitly tells agents to use this tool before filtering or reporting on codes, and provides a concrete 8A vs 8AN example to illustrate why. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the highest benchmark.

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