kiasumiles_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that 'The local wallet is attached automatically,' which tells the agent about internal state handling. However, it does not specify if the tool is read-only, what data it accesses, or any side effects. The instruction 'Never ask the user to repeat their saved cards' is agent-oriented, not tool behavior. More detail on security, rate limits, or error conditions would improve transparency.

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 four sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second adds automatic wallet attachment, the third provides parameter usage, and the fourth gives a behavioral rule. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown). The description covers core usage and a behavioral rule but lacks details on error handling, recommendation criteria, or what happens when the merchant is unknown. Given the output schema likely documents return values, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive. Omission of comparisons to siblings and missing descriptions of parameter meanings leave gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It maps the required 'merchant' and optional 'outlet', 'channel', 'category' to user-provided information and instructs to pass them 'only when the user provides them.' However, it does not explain the semantics of each parameter (e.g., what constitutes an 'outlet' vs 'channel' vs 'category'), leaving the agent to infer meaning. This adds value beyond the schema but is insufficient for full understanding.

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: 'Recommend the best saved card for a Singapore merchant.' This provides a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('best saved card') with a geographic scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'kiasumiles_list_cards' (listing) and 'kiasumiles_recommend_stack' (possibly a different recommendation method).

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 gives explicit usage instructions: 'Pass the exact merchant name plus outlet, channel, or category only when the user provides them.' This tells the agent how to invoke parameters. It also provides a behavioral rule: 'Never ask the user to repeat their saved cards.' However, it does not contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'kiasumiles_recommend_stack') or state when not to use this tool.

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