get_directory_line_by_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a 'look up' operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose any other traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks behavioral detail.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that clearly states the verb, resource, and filtering criterion. It includes the HTTP endpoint for extra context. No unnecessary words.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description is sufficient for basic usage. Minor missing elements like error cases are acceptable for this level of simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'addressing code' but adds little beyond the parameter's schema description. No additional semantic value is provided for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'look up' and resource 'directory line' with a clear filtering criterion 'by addressing code'. It also provides the HTTP endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_directory_line' or 'search_directory_line'.

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 for looking up a directory line by a specific code, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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