pilot_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output fields and the general lookup behavior, but does not mention potential failure modes, whether it is read-only (though 'lookup' implies so), or any edge cases like missing nodes. The description adds some context but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and expected output, the second provides usage context and sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place 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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. It even compares itself to a sibling tool, ensuring the agent has sufficient context to decide when to invoke it.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'target' with a clear description of accepted formats. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 does a 'Registry lookup for a node' and explicitly lists the return fields (public key, listen address, hostname, last-seen timestamp, tags). It distinguishes from the sibling tool pilot_find by noting it is 'More detailed than pilot_find', making the purpose and scope highly specific.

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: 'Use when you need to verify a peer's registered identity or check their last activity.' It also implicitly differentiates from pilot_find by pointing out it is more detailed, which helps the agent choose between alternatives.

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