lookup_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating read operation (lookup) and explains what the returned documentation includes (parameters, return value, example code). It does not cover error behavior or exact-match handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise but includes redundant bilingual repetition (English and Chinese say the same thing). The Args section is well-structured and front-loaded. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 (one parameter, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It explains what the output includes and the exact-name constraint. Missing error-case details are a minor gap, but overall it's nearly complete.

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?

The schema only specifies 'function_name' as a string with no description. The description's Args section adds critical meaning: 'Exact function name' and concrete examples ('get_price', 'get_fundamentals'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and clarifies the expected input format.

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 complete documentation for a JoinQuant API function by exact name, which is specific and distinguishes it from search or listing by implying exact-name matching. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 when you know the exact function name, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternatives. 'By exact name' is the only contextual clue differentiating it from search_docs or list_functions.

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