misc_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is a query and supports keyword filtering, but does not disclose what the output looks like, whether results are localized, how to handle unsupported topics, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal disclosure but not misleading.

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 one concise sentence followed by a topic list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content. Every element earns its place.

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 lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation: it lists all valid topics and mentions optional filtering. However, it does not specify the return format or any constraints on keyword usage across topics, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 50%: topic has an enum but no description, while keyword has a short description. The tool description adds the context of 'reference table query' and says keyword is an optional filter, but it mostly restates the enum values already present in the schema. It provides some extra meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing topic description.

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 queries common reference tables and lists all available topic values. This specific verb+resource combination, along with the topic list, distinguishes it from sibling misc tools like barcode, qrcode, favicon, and shortcut.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions that topic is optional (though schema marks it required) and keyword is an optional filter, but does not discuss scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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