lookup_documents_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns a list of matching documents or a ToolError, and mentions confidence scores. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly declare non-destructive behavior or other traits like rate limits or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 split into parameter docs and a summary paragraph. The summary is concise, but the parameter section is verbose and somewhat repetitive. The overall structure is clear but could be more streamlined without losing essential info.

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 two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers parameter usage, error behavior, and expected output format (list of DocumentMatch objects). It also references a sibling tool for a subtask. It is largely complete, though details of the output schema are not elaborated (but output schema itself exists).

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 fully compensates. For keywords, it adds constraints (up to 3 words, avoid common words) and clarifies usage. For class_symbolic_name, it explains when to use it and how to obtain the value via determine_class, adding significant meaning 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 tool executes a search to lookup documents by name, distinguishing it from siblings like 'document_search' (general search) and 'lookup_documents_by_path' (path-based). The verb 'lookup' and resource 'documents by name' are specific. Additional parameter guidance reinforces purpose.

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 provides specific guidance on when to use the optional class_symbolic_name parameter and refers to determine_class tool as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., general search or path lookup), leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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