lookup_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns an empty array when it lacks a confident answer, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise—four short sentences—front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear usage guidelines. Every sentence contributes essential information without 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'endpoints, schemas, fields, enum values' but does not describe the response structure. Parameter semantics are missing, leaving the agent partially informed. Despite good usage guidance, the lack of param and output detail limits completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, the description does not mention 'query' or 'top_k' at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default. This is a significant gap.

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 provides an 'Exact Aruba Central API lookup — endpoints, schemas, fields, enum values.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_docs' tool by listing concrete use cases.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use INSTEAD of search_docs for ...' with specific examples, and also provides fallback instructions: 'Returns [] when the specs hold no confident answer — fall back to search_docs in that case.' This fully clarifies when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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