Iota Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's field list ('name, DXCC entity, bounding box, center coordinates...') largely duplicates what the existing output schema conveys, and it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid or nonexistent reference number.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key. The enumerated return fields are somewhat redundant given the output schema, which is the only minor waste.

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 one-parameter exact lookup with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers action, key, and result shape adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to iota_search, which would be the main thing missing for an agent choosing between siblings.

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 100% and the single 'refno' parameter already carries a format example (NA-005, EU-005, AF-001). The description adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: look up an IOTA group by reference number, and the 'by reference number' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling iota_search. It stops short of naming iota_search explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by reference number' signals an exact-key lookup, which contrasts with iota_search, and the presence of iota_nearby/iota_islands suggests other access paths. No sentence states when to prefer this tool or what to do if the refno is unknown.

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