lookup_technology

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: 'Costs 1 credit.' It also describes the high-level output (usage and top countries), giving the agent an idea of what to expect. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple read-only lookup, this is adequate.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the core functionality. The second sentence adds a usage example and cost information, both valuable. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, an example, and a cost note. It does not detail the exact response format, but the description's statement that it returns 'how widely used' and 'top countries by adoption' gives sufficient context for a simple lookup tool.

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 schema already provides a thorough description for the 'technology' parameter, including examples (Shopify, Klaviyo, Cloudflare), so schema coverage is 100%. The description only reinforces 'technology name' without adding new constraints or formatting details, placing it at the baseline.

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's function: given a technology name, it returns usage breadth and top adopting countries. It includes a concrete example ('how many sites run Shopify, and where?') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_company (company-focused) and lookup_domain_technologies (domain-focused).

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to size a market or compare platforms.' It provides a practical use case but does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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