lookup_enhancement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It confirms a read operation and identifies return fields, but does not disclose potential partial matching, case sensitivity, or error handling. This is adequate but not exhaustive for a simple lookup.

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, direct sentence that conveys the purpose, resource, and return values without any redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple lookup with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return information. It omits details like output format or behavior for partial matches, but these are secondary for such a tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that 'name' is the key and states return fields, but does not elaborate on how optional filters interact or support fuzzy matching. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'enhancement', and specifies the returned fields (points cost, detachment, effect). This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools for different game elements (units, detachments, etc.) by resource and return content.

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 context by naming a specific resource and return fields, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternatives. Given distinct sibling tool names, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer proper use.

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