apilookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool uses a headless CLI with web search capability (via the gemini agent) and that other agents answer from training data while flagging staleness. This is transparent and sets expectations appropriately for a lookup tool, though it does not mention potential side effects or rate limits.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-line statement of purpose followed by bullet-pointed use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. There is no redundant or extraneous 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 that there is no output schema, the description would ideally explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the return value format or content. While the use cases and agent guidance are helpful, the agent may need to infer the output structure. The description provides adequate context for basic usage but lacks completeness on the result shape.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, meaning the schema provides no documentation. The description compensates partially by explaining the 'agent' parameter's default and behavior, but it does not describe the 'query' parameter format (e.g., what kind of query is expected) or the 'timeout_seconds' parameter's purpose. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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: 'Look up current documentation for an API/library/SDK using web-capable CLI.' It provides specific use cases that further clarify the intended actions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the distinct verb and resource make it stand out among the provided siblings.

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 includes three concrete use cases that illustrate when to use the tool, such as verifying version changes or finding canonical URLs. It also offers guidance on agent selection, noting that the default 'gemini' provides web search via the CLI while other agents may return stale results. This provides context for usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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