lookup_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results are quoted verbatim, and it enumerates the fields returned in the report (`found`, `syntax`, `values`, `default`, `dependencies`, `description`, `text`). It does not discuss limits on keyword matching or failure modes beyond the `found` flag.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then parameter meaning and return fields. The backtick-heavy formatting is a little busy but each sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the returned report fields, including the `found` flag that drives the fallback. Combined with usage and parameter guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only matching semantics are unstated.

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% for the single `keyword` parameter, so the description carries the burden — and it does, defining it as a control-file variable and giving three concrete example values ('thetaprior', 'phase', 'speciesdelimitation'). That compensates well, though it does not specify matching rules (case sensitivity, exact vs partial).

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 states a specific verb and resource (retrieve the BPP manual's entry for one control-file keyword), and adds the scope qualifier that it is quoted verbatim. It differentiates itself from sibling `search_docs` by naming it as the fallback path, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance (use this instead of your own knowledge whenever stating BPP syntax, defaults, allowed values or keyword dependencies) and an explicit when-not path (if `found` is false, use search_docs). The alternative sibling is named with its selecting condition.

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