lookup_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. It only describes the return content and does not mention any constraints or side effects, leaving a significant gap for a read operation.

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 very short (two sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 (no output schema, few parameters), the description adequately covers the return content. However, slightly more detail on response format (e.g., partial matches, error handling) would improve completeness, but it's not a critical gap.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the three parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it looks up a Warhammer 40K unit or Kill Team operative datasheet by name, listing specific return fields (stats, weapons, abilities, keywords). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_units and compare_units.

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 implicitly indicates usage for lookup by name with optional faction and game mode filters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the sibling tool names provide context, and the description is clear enough for the primary use case.

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