icf_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the return includes definition, inclusions, and exclusions, and implies read-only behavior. However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid codes) and case sensitivity.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then provides necessary background in a structured manner (prefixes, args, returns). Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It provides ICF context but lacks details like error behavior. Still, it covers the essential use case.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning by providing code prefix categories and examples ('b280', 'd450'), clarifying the expected format and valid values beyond type string.

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 'Look up an ICF code and get its full details', providing a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like icf_search, icf_get_children, etc.

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 implies usage (when you have a specific code) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. The prefix explanation adds background but not decision context.

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