lookup_enum_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one real piece of behavioral context – that it returns reference semantics and deliberately makes no fault-cause judgment – which prevents over-interpreting the answer, but nothing on lookup failure behavior or catalog scoping.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the scope limit trailing; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse for a three-required-parameter tool, but no wording is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool requiring catalog_id plus code plus value with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing where catalog_id comes from and how code relates to value, which is a material omission for correct invocation.

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% and all three parameters (catalog_id, code, value) are required with no titles beyond field names. The description never mentions catalog_id, code, or value, so the agent gets no help on which catalog to supply or the difference between code and value. It only faintly evokes '参数设定范围', which does not compensate for the 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 gives a concrete verb and object ('在参数设定范围中查找显式枚举说明' – look up explicit enum descriptions within the parameter setting scope) and explicitly bounds the result as a reference meaning rather than a fault diagnosis. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_parameter_definition or search_parameters.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for resolving a specific enum value's meaning, and the clause '不判断实际故障原因' excludes diagnostic use. No positive when-to-use condition or named alternative (e.g., get_parameter_definition) is given, so routing between siblings remains ambiguous.

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