Search Lookups

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool searches specific fields and returns up to 'limit' results (default 20), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentences: the first states the action, the second adds relevant details (fields, sources, limit). No unnecessary words, effectively front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the search scope and limit well. It could mention performance implications or result format, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'text match' for query and 'limit' with default, indirectly explaining the parameters. However, it does not explicitly define the query parameter or its format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 performs a text search across all lookup files, listing specific fields (filename, description, categories, MITRE IDs, notes) and sources (LOLBAS, GTFOBins, parent-child baselines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific lookups or categories.

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 text matching across multiple lookup sources. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context makes it clear for general search versus specialized siblings.

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