lookup_item

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 multiple items can be looked up and that the output is dynamically formatted, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explain the return structure, error handling, or whether lookups are exact or partial matches, leaving significant ambiguity for an unannotated tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Look up one or more items'), uses a parenthetical to list examples, and ends with a concise clause about dynamic formatting. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect as a result. It only mentions 'dynamic formatting of available fields' without specifying which fields are available or how the output is structured. It also does not address not-found cases or the relationship to specialized sibling lookups, leaving moderate gaps.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'names' with type, min/max item counts, and examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'by name' and 'one or more', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool looks up items by name and lists example categories (arcanes, resources, blueprints), giving a specific verb and resource. It also mentions a distinctive behavior ('dynamic formatting'), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lookup_warframe or lookup_mod, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools (e.g., lookup_warframe, lookup_mod, market_price_check). The description simply states what the tool does without exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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