Lookup Reference Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior context: it returns a list with typically an identifier and name, or a summary with counts when category is omitted, and supports markdown/json response formats. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify what the agent can expect from the call.

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 well-structured: it opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, adds a practical usage note, then lists parameters and return value concisely. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff, and the use of a short args list keeps it scannable.

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's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, return content, and usage context. It explains the category summary and typical entry structure, but could be more precise about the exact response format (e.g., JSON structure). Still, it is sufficiently complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 already provides full descriptions and enums for both parameters (category and response_format), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description repeats these values and adds little new parameter-level semantics; it mentions the optionality and default but not beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch Logiwa reference/lookup data used to resolve names and identifiers needed by other tools' – a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It clearly delineates this lookup tool from sibling tools like logiwa_list_inventory or logiwa_create_product by focusing on reference/lookup data, and lists the exact categories handled.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Many create/update tools need a clientIdentifier, type name, or currency — use this first to discover valid values.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the directive 'use this first' is strong and contextually clear.

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