lookup_technology

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

With no annotations provided, the description should cover behavioral traits, but it only states the basic purpose. It does not mention authentication requirements, output format, or any side effects (though likely none).

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 a single 6-word sentence, which is very concise but may be too terse. It lacks structure or additional clarifying sentences that would improve usability without being verbose.

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 simplicity (4 optional params, no output schema, no required params), the description is minimally complete. However, it does not clarify that only one company is looked up per call, nor what the output contains, leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little extra value. The description does not clarify usage constraints (e.g., at least one parameter required) or how parameters map to the lookup.

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 'Look up technologies used by a company' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling lookup tools (e.g., lookup_company, lookup_person) by specifying 'technologies', but does not differentiate from search_technologies which may also return technologies per company.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_technologies or other lookup tools. The description lacks when-to-use/when-not-to-use context.

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