recall_counterparty

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

Despite no annotations, the description covers all key behavioral traits: read-only nature, case-insensitive search, return of multiple matches, empty list for no matches, and interpretation of a Tier-1 miss. This is thorough and prevents misinterpretation.

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 four sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input details, output behavior, and a clarifying note. No redundant or vague statements.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with one parameter and output schema indicated, the description covers all necessary aspects: input, output, behavior on missing data, and usage responsibility. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the single parameter 'identifier_or_name', detailing acceptable formats (local:... or DID alias, display name) and constraints (exact or historical, case-insensitive). This compensates entirely for the schema 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 action ('Look up'), the resource ('counterparty'), the scope ('Tier-1 local journal'), and the mode ('read-only'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'remember_counterparty' which is likely a write operation.

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?

Provides clear guidance on acceptable inputs (identifier or display name) and output behavior (returns every match, agent disambiguation). Implies read-only use, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives beyond the context of sibling tools.

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