trawl_docs_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the load; it does disclose the multi-source fallback chain (Context7 -> Trawl pools) and that results are version-aware, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about result format, latency/rate limits, or what happens when no source matches.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability first, usage condition second. No filler, no restating of the name, and the important mechanism (version-aware, fallback) is front-loaded.

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 tool with fully described parameters and no nested objects, the description covers what it does and how sources are prioritized. The only meaningful omission is what the returned content looks like (doc excerpts vs. links), since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, library, sources, and version are already documented with examples. The description adds only the framing that lookups are version-aware and source-ordered, which is largely restated by the schema's defaults.

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 (look up) and resource (documentation for a library), plus the underlying mechanism (Context7 with local Trawl pool fallback). That clearly separates it from generic sibling tools like trawl_search or trawl_search_code, though it never names those siblings as the contrast.

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?

"Use this when you need API docs, usage examples, or version-specific information for any library" gives an explicit triggering condition. It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use trawl_search_code for source inspection or trawl_search for non-library material).

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