lookup_agency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains the behavior for each lookup type, pagination (offset, limit order), and name_filter application. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 with a clear Args section and front-loaded purpose. It is thorough but not overly verbose; every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'required for' multiple times) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

With 7 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all parameter relationships, pagination order, and usage details. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists. The description is fully complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the properties have no descriptions. The tool's description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, requirements, and constraints (e.g., required for certain lookup_type). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: to look up law enforcement agencies by state, ORI code, or judicial district code. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on crime data, by being the sole agency lookup tool.

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 specifies three lookup types and their required parameters, guiding when to use each. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but sibling tools are distinctly different, so the guidance is clear.

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