lookup_crusade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 11th Edition limitation, the three coverage tiers, that content is not merged into datasheets, and the filter-combination behavior. It stops short of describing return format or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are genuinely useful.

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?

Every sentence adds distinct information: scope, tiers, edition, filtering, and the required-parameter rule. The description is dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and gracefully adding constraints.

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 4-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it looks up, which editions, which tiers, how to combine filters, and what is required. It is one of the more complete lookup descriptions, though it could mention the response shape.

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 schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining how `faction` and `campaign` combine ('and/or'), giving concrete examples for campaign values, and stating the 'at least one' requirement. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Look up Warhammer 40,000 Crusade content') and clearly enumerates content types (Battle Traits, Crusade Relics, Battle Scars, Boon tables). It distinguishes from sibling lookup tools by focusing solely on Crusade content and detailing edition/coverage.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('Crusade content... 11th Edition only') and how to filter with faction/campaign parameters. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or explain when not to use this tool, but the scope is well-delimited and the filtering instructions are explicit.

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