lookup

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a retrieval operation, returns 'full content' rather than snippets, selects the 'most relevant' segments, groups results per part, and fuses search and get behavior. It does not mention errors or edge cases like no matches, but the core behavioral profile is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage preference is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers what it retrieves, how results are grouped, and when it should be chosen over `search`. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 `query` and `parts` already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description only echoes the `parts` grouping behavior already stated in the schema, so it adds little semantic value beyond the input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'One-shot spec/section retrieval: full content of the most relevant datasheet segments.' It also differentiates from siblings by saying it 'fuses search+get' and by naming `search` as the lower-preference alternative when part numbers are known.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'prefer `lookup` over `search` when you know the part(s).' This clearly states a primary condition and names a concrete alternative. It does not enumerate exclusions for the other siblings, but the 'when you know the part(s)' condition is enough to route an agent correctly in most cases.

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