lookup_error_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful provenance — the answer comes from local reference tables plus accumulated invocation experience, which hints the answers may be incomplete or empirical — but it says nothing about what happens when a code is unknown or unrecognized.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is only slightly padded by carrying the same content twice for bilingual readers, but that duplication is deliberate and does not obscure the core statement.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what a result looks like or how an unresolved code is reported. It covers purpose and data provenance but leaves return shape and miss behavior unstated, which is a real gap for a lookup tool.

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 `code` parameter. The description only implies that the argument is the error code to be resolved, which adds essentially nothing beyond the parameter's own name. This is the bare minimum rather than compensating 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?

The description gives a specific verb (look up), a specific resource (an error code), and even names the two things it returns: the code's meaning and its handling. No sibling tool in the list performs anything comparable, so an agent can unambiguously route diagnostics here.

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 never states when to reach for this tool (e.g. after a command fails or a robot reports a fault) or when it is not applicable, and it names no alternative. The parenthetical describes the data source, not the usage condition, so the agent must infer the trigger entirely.

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