lookup_software

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: pagination must reuse the same query/kind, names are case-insensitive, results are grouped by project, and the cursor meaning differs per source. It stops short of describing return fields or rate limits.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core purpose before the source/pagination caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Science's API' phrasing is slightly awkward and the pagination/source rules could be grouped more tightly.

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 no output schema, the description does some of the return-value work (evidence rows grouped by project, cursor is a row ID). But it omits the shape of an evidence row and any field names, leaving the agent partially blind on results despite the solid coverage of pagination mechanics.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It hints at 'query' and 'kind' and refers to the cursor only as 'next_after_id' (the actual parameter is 'after_id'), never explains 'limit' or its 25 max, and never enumerates the kind values (doi, repository_url, homepage_url, purl), which an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find exact software names or identifiers via the Science API. The word 'exact' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_software (a fuzzy search), but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for choosing a source: 'If SCIENCE_SEEDS_DB is set, use that snapshot instead' and 'Keep the same source throughout pagination.' However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_software guidance, which is the most likely agent decision point.

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