shelf_lookup_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that resolution returns an owning asset or kit, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior, precedence between qrId and barcode, or whether resolution is exact-match.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and outcome front-loaded and no filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: input is a scanned code, output is the owning asset/kit. It is slightly thin on edge cases (all three params are optional, so an agent gets no guidance on which one to supply or what happens if none is), but it is adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description maps conceptually to qrId and barcode but adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail, and does not mention the orgId parameter at all.

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 ('Resolve') and specific resources ('Shelf QR code ID or a barcode value') and names the outcome ('the asset/kit it belongs to'). This is far more informative than the name alone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with lookup siblings like shelf_get_asset or shelf_link_qr.

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 word 'scanned' implies the usage context (an agent holding a QR/barcode string), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over shelf_get_asset with an asset ID, nor any exclusion or prerequisite conditions.

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