iso_get_iso_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Returns ISO details if found', disclosing that a lookup might not produce a result, but it does not state what happens on no match, whether the search is exact or partial, or confirm this is a read-only operation. The 'if found' hint is minor and incomplete.

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 very brief, using the top line plus Args/Returns sections. It contains no fluff or redundancy, and every sentence adds relevant information about the purpose or parameters. This is an appropriate level of conciseness for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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?

The description is a minimal annotation for a simple one-parameter lookup, but it omits context that would help an agent select it correctly: no mention of when to prefer it over other iso tools, no statement about return behavior if not found, and no acknowledgment of the output schema. With zero annotations and five sibling ISO tools, the description provides too little contextual guidance.

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 provides no description for the 'name' parameter, but the description explicitly says 'ISO name or filename to search for', adding meaningful real-world semantics. However, it doesn't clarify match behavior (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy) or how name and filename are treated. This is a modest improvement over the empty schema but still incomplete.

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 states the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ISO', and limits the lookup by name or filename, making its purpose clear. It is not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like iso_get_iso (likely ID-based), so a distinction is implied rather than stated. Thus it's clear but falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iso_list_isos or iso_get_iso. The Args and Returns sections only describe parameters and output, not any selection criteria. The description leaves the agent to infer the distinguishing scenario from the name alone.

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