oratilo_lookup

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hit/miss behavior ('Returns the full summary plus provenance metadata on a hit. A miss means the video is not covered'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond what a schema would convey. It lacks some depth (e.g., what provenance metadata entails on a miss) but covers the core behavioral contract well.

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?

Three focused sentences, well front-loaded with the decision-critical use case. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, hit/miss outcome, and accepted input formats. Minor redundancy with the schema's source description but overall tight and efficient.

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?

For a read-lookup tool with a simple 2-param schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the decision workflow, hit/miss outcome, and accepted input types. It could benefit from noting what's returned on a miss and clarifying that this isn't a fuzzy search (contrast with sibling), but given the tool's simplicity the coverage is strong.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are described adequately in the schema. The description adds value by explaining accepted source formats ('YouTube URLs or video ids') and noting arXiv ids are 'reserved for the future,' which constrains interpretation beyond the raw schema text. Baseline 3 raised for the added source-format context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') plus resource ('oratilo... has a summary') plus context ('BEFORE spending work summarizing it yourself'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool oratilo_search by indicating this is an exact lookup vs search. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Check... BEFORE spending work summarizing it yourself.' It also states what to do on a miss ('summarize it yourself'), providing exclusions. Distinguishes from alternatives by naming when not to rely on it.

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