teryt_lookup

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

Without annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects: it is a search backed by GUGiK's PRG boundary registry, guaranteeing consistency with teryt_to_geometry. It also states limitations (no locality-level). However, it does not explicitly declare read-only status or mention potential performance implications, so a small gap remains.

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 (5 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second explains level param, third covers data source, and fourth-fifth address limitations/alternatives. Every sentence is essential and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, data source, limitations, alternatives, and inter-tool relationships. No additional context is needed for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 explains the 'name' parameter (search by name) and the 'level' parameter (narrow to specific administrative unit types with explicit allowed values). The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though 'name' could benefit from additional format details.

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 ('Search for TERYT administrative-unit codes by name') and clearly identifies the resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like emuia_search and teryt_to_geometry, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (search by name, optionally filter by level), when not to use it (locality-level lookup), and directs to an alternative (emuia_search). It also notes compatibility with teryt_to_geometry.

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