Get Lookup Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by decoding status values (developing, production, activating) and explaining that activationStatus=failed with activationError means the publish failed. It does not cover paging behavior or permission needs, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then compact notes on version and status semantics. Dense but every sentence carries information; minor stylistic quote/backtick noise from source formatting.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to frame what is returned and how to read statuses, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the active version is and how to interpret version/status outcomes that the version parameter selects. It does not elaborate on limit/start/key_filter beyond the schema.

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 (Read) and resource (a lookup table) and enumerates what the read returns: versions, one version's entries, and the rule sets that use it. This clearly separates it from create_lookup_table, update_lookup_table, and activate_lookup_table among the siblings.

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?

Explains version selection semantics ("active_version is the version rules use now", status values, failed activation), which implies when to pick a version, but never names an alternative tool or states explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance.

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