lookup_documents_by_name

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a list of matches or a ToolError, and mentions confidence scores. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with parameter details but includes a redundant closing paragraph. At 5 sentences, it could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 (2 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers parameter usage, return value shape (DocumentMatch with name and confidence), and error behavior. Lacks details on result count limits or pagination, but overall good completeness.

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%, but the description provides rich details for both parameters: keywords limited to 3 words with advice to avoid common words, class_symbolic_name optional with guidance to use determine_class. This adds substantial value 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 it searches for documents by name using keywords and returns a list of matching documents. It differentiates from path-based lookup by its name, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'document_search'.

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?

Provides guidance on parameter usage, such as up to 3 keywords and advice to avoid common words, and suggests using determine_class for class lookup. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_search or lookup_documents_by_path.

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