lookup_keyword

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the return includes definitions, explanations, examples, and game modes. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like partial matching, multiple results, or error handling for missing keywords.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and immediately conveys the tool's purpose and return 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's simplicity, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs and outputs. It could be slightly more complete by addressing partial matches or multiple results, but overall it's detailed enough.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds 'optional game mode filter' which is already in the schema description. No new semantic meaning beyond schema is provided.

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 resource ('Warhammer 40K keyword or rule'), and specifies what the tool returns: official definition, plain English explanation, examples, and applicable game modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_unit or lookup_stratagem.

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 for looking up keywords/rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use lookup_keyword vs lookup_unit for a unit-specific rule). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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