lookup_api_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that the local index stores names only, that signatures are unavailable, and that sibling members are returned for context. It omits things like index freshness or error behavior on a miss, but the data-scope disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the return behavior, then the limitation and fallback. Efficient and well-ordered, though the middle clause about sibling members could be folded more tightly.

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 needn't be described, and the description correctly focuses on the names-only limitation and the limitation's workaround. Complete for selection; only the sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 registers 0% at the top level, but the description only restates 'by interface + name' and adds no syntax, format, or optionality guidance (year, index_file go unmentioned). The nested property descriptions carry the real detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate rather than penalizing further.

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 (Look up) and resource (one SolidWorks API method or property) scoped by interface + name. Clear enough to distinguish from search_solidworks_api_help, which it explicitly defers to for signatures, but it never contrasts itself with the closely related sibling find_related_api_members.

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 implies usage ('Confirms the member is indexed on that interface and returns its sibling members') and points to search_solidworks_api_help / help.solidworks.com when signatures are needed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the overlapping siblings lookup_api_interface and find_related_api_members, leaving selection to inference.

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