Omiss Member Lookup

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Look up' reasonably implies a non-destructive read, but the description says nothing about authentication needs, not-found behavior, or what happens when both identifiers are passed. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be restated.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the alternative-key constraint front-loaded; no filler or 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 two-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the description covers the essentials. It stops short of noting error/ambiguity handling (both keys, no match), which is the only meaningful gap.

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%, so both parameters are documented with examples, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating 'give one', surfacing a one-of constraint that the schema itself does not enforce (both keys are optional with defaults).

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 (look up) and a single, well-bounded resource (one OMISS member), plus the two accepted identifier types. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like omiss_checkin_history or omiss_officers, which return different entities.

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?

'(give one)' tells the agent that callsign and OM number are alternative keys, implying mutual exclusivity. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus sibling lookups, nor what happens if both keys are supplied or neither resolves.

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