CCA Class Lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It uses non-mutating verbs ('Find', 'browse') implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or side effects. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately conveys how to interact with the tool.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description does not specify what the lookup returns (e.g., class number, description, tax rate). This is a minor gap given the simple nature of the tool, so it is minimally complete.

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 sole parameter (search_term) is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and example. The description adds modest context by mentioning 'search by asset type' but does not surpass the schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema_description_coverage is 100%.

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 a specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('correct CCA class for a capital asset') and distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_cca by focusing on classification lookup. It also indicates two modes: searching by asset type or browsing all classes.

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 usage by describing what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as calculate_cca. It provides no when/what-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer context from the tool name.

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