lookup_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It adds the allowed values for kind and the return format, but does not mention side effects, authorization, rate limits, or error scenarios. The behavior is partially disclosed but incomplete.

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 very concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary details without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for each parameter).

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?

The complexity is low, but with 0% schema coverage, the description should fully cover parameter behavior. It handles kind but not query. The output schema exists but the description already mentions the return format. Overall, it is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'kind' parameter (possible values) but does not explain the 'query' parameter at all. This is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters.

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 purpose: to look up 104 job category/area codes. It specifies the kind parameter values ('jobcat' or 'area') and the return format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_detail and search_jobs.

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 the tool is for code lookup when you need job category or area codes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is minimal but sufficient for a simple lookup.

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