lookup_terminal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned record fields (function, wiring, wire number, source page), which tells the agent what a hit looks like. It omits any statement about lookup scope, whether the match is exact or fuzzy, or what happens with the lang parameter.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The six example identifiers are slightly more than needed and lead the sentence rather than the action, but they efficiently convey the format variety.

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 detail is not required, and the description covers the record fields anyway. However, for a tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, leaving the `lang` parameter and the matching behavior unexplained is a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. The examples do illustrate the accepted terminal format, but the `lang` parameter (default 'en') is never mentioned, and the description does not clarify whether `terminal` is an exact identifier or a partial match.

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 names a concrete resource (terminals of the heat pump, expansion card, cooling module) and states what it returns (function, wiring, wire number, source page), with realistic example identifiers. It never explicitly says 'look up a terminal' or distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_register, so the boundary between the two lookups is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives (lookup_register, search_kb). The examples '211', '303', '1L1', 'PE5' implicitly signal the kind of input that makes this tool applicable, which provides only implied guidance.

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