lookup_detachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly lists exactly what the tool returns (ability, enhancements, stratagems, points, force dispositions, mutual exclusions) and discloses an 11th Edition-specific behavior with a concrete example. It does not discuss error handling or partial-match behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical example is dense but informative, earning its place without bloating the overall length.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields and edition-specific restrictions. It is sufficiently complete for a lookup tool, covering both inputs (via schema) and outputs (via description).

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?

All three parameters already have descriptive schemas, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'name' parameter and adds edition context, but it does not add new meaning to 'faction' or 'game_mode' beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and identifies the resource ('Warhammer 40,000 detachment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling lookup tools for stratagems, enhancements, and units. It also enumerates the return content, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving detachment details, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lookup_stratagem or lookup_enhancement. The edition-specific note provides some context, but there is no direct when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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