reverse_lookup

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 the tool queries Wikidata and auto-resolves country names to Q-ids, but it does not mention side effects, network calls, or potential errors. It also leaves ambiguity around the `launch_date` parameter behavior (whether it filters or sorts), which could affect the agent's expectations.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line summary, two illustrative examples, then a clearly formatted parameter list. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the structure front-loads the core functionality before diving into details.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks explicit handling of empty results or error conditions, which could be important for an agent's decision-making. Still, the core context—what the tool does and how to configure it—is sufficiently covered.

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?

Every parameter in the schema is explained in the Args section. The description adds critical details beyond the schema, such as `country_qid` taking precedence over `country` and `launch_date` controlling ordering vs enumeration. This fully clarifies the meaning and usage of each argument.

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 function: '逆引き歴史Q&A — カテゴリ+国 で絞り込んだ最初/記録の宇宙オブジェクトを Wikidata から探す。' This identifies a specific action (search), resource (Wikidata), and subject (space objects filtered by category and country). It is distinct from sibling tools like upcoming_launches or apod which focus on current or media content.

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 concrete examples ('米国で最初に打ち上げた宇宙望遠鏡は?') that imply when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or comparisons to sibling tools.

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