lookup_ich_guideline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information but does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a simple lookup, 'returns' implies read-only, but the description lacks explicit behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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 sentence front-loaded with the action and examples, containing no filler words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and 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 low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains the purpose and return value. It could optionally mention that the lookup is read-only or that the URL is official, but the current content is sufficient for most agents.

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% for the single parameter guideline_code, which already includes examples. The description reinforces with additional examples (E6(R3), M4, Q1A) and clarifies that the code is an ICH guideline code, adding value beyond the 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 clearly specifies the action 'Look up an ICH guideline by code', provides concrete examples like E6(R3), M4, Q1A, and states the return items (scope, key requirements, official URL). This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_ich_compliance or map_ctd_section.

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 implies usage when one needs details on a specific ICH guideline code, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tool names suggest other compliance-related functions, so the gap is moderate.

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