get_lookup_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned data elements but does not mention read-only guarantees, permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies safety, but explicit behavioral context is limited.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists the returned fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value with no 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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks explicit statements about failure modes or permissions, but the output schema fills in the return structure, making the description sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (table_id) as 'Lookup table ID', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter beyond its existence, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool gets a lookup table's configuration and schema, and enumerates the specific returned fields (field definitions, primary keys, TTL, size limit action, parent folder ID). This distinguishes it from list_lookup_tables and other getters by specifying the exact resource and scope.

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 context is implied: use this when you need a specific table's configuration/schema, and sibling list_lookup_tables for listing. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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