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 states 'Returns' implying a read-only operation, which is non-destructive. The description does not explicitly declare safety or side effects, but for a lookup tool, the behavior is self-evident. Adding explicit read-only confirmation would raise the score to 5.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Look up a Warhammer 40K keyword or rule') and efficiently lists outputs. Every element adds value; no extraneous words.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a simple lookup tool. It covers purpose, inputs (implicitly via schema), and outputs in detail. Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully informs the agent of return content. Given the clarity and completeness, the agent can correctly invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds output details (official definition, plain English explanation, examples) but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Look up a Warhammer 40K keyword or rule.' It also lists specific outputs (definition, explanation, examples, game modes). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like lookup_unit or lookup_stratagem, which focus on other entity types.

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 or rules, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_unit for unit-specific keywords. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, though the context of sibling tools offers some differentiation.

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