ofp_semantic_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that codes carried by more than ten fields return an explicit caution, which helps the agent interpret results appropriately.

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 sentences carry all necessary information with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by a concise use-case explanation and a meaningful caveat.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and a behavioral caution. It does not detail the output format, but its absence is minor given the low complexity and strong annotation coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'code' parameter with an example. The description frames the code's purpose and orienting use case, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema and example already provide.

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 ('Show') and states the exact resource ('canonical fields carry one O-DEF semantic code'). It further clarifies the purpose as a reverse lookup for connectors, which sharply differentiates it from sibling tools like ofp_semantics or semantic_query.

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 clearly gives the usage context: 'given a field in a source system, find where in the Open Footprint model it belongs.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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