lookup

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

The description discloses the use of LIKE for fuzzy search and a 100-record limit. However, it does not mention that if no field is specified, all text fields are searched (only in schema), nor does it indicate case sensitivity or potential performance implications on large tables.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could explain the return format or fields. It only mentions 'up to 100 records,' leaving details like column names or ordering unspecified. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, meeting the baseline for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation.

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 purpose: fuzzy search (LIKE) by keyword in a specified TABLE or VIEW, with a maximum return of 100 records. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_databases and list_tables which are listing tools, and query_sql which allows arbitrary SQL queries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially query_sql. There is no mention of conditions where query_sql would be more appropriate, such as for exact matches or complex queries.

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