gangtise_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is local and returns data directly without API calls, which are useful behavioral traits. It could add more about data freshness or limitations, but core behavior is communicated.

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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences that define the tool's purpose and list available categories. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose (lookup reference data), the description covers its functionality adequately. It explains the data types and the local nature, though it could mention that this data is often used to populate parameters in other tools.

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 one parameter with enum values and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description lists the same categories, reinforcing but not adding significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 queries local static reference data and lists eight specific categories (research areas, broker organizations, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific data types like announcements or financial statements.

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 mentions 'no need to call API, directly return local data,' implying it is a lightweight, fast lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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