jurisdiction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: exit code 0 means known content, exit code 2 means unknown/third-party and 'honestly refused'. This goes beyond a simple 'lookup' and informs the agent about refusal behavior and result interpretation. It doesn't cover other edge cases or side effects, but the disclosed exit-code semantics are 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by exit-code semantics. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a complex schema with 6 parameters and nested objects, and no annotations. The description only covers the core lookup behavior and exit codes, ignoring the context params (e.g., table_policy, asserted_facts) and their role. An output schema exists, but the description does not explain how the inputs relate to outputs or when the optional parameters should be used. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps the required 'name' parameter to the named entity, but it says nothing about the other five parameters (request_id, table_policy, asserted_facts, policy_context, table_decision), which remain undocumented in both schema and description. The agent has no guidance on how these affect the lookup. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's sparse descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('content registries'), and defines the outcome via exit codes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily combat/mechanics focused (e.g., attack_modifiers, save_check).

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 implies the use case: checking whether a named entity is known in the loaded rulesets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context must be inferred from the phrasing alone.

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