lsl_lookup_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that matching is exact and case-sensitive, but adds nothing about miss handling or result shape beyond the annotations.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the matching semantics and ending with what the result carries. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is explicit routing away from lsl_search_reference and any note on what happens when an exact match is not found.

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 single 'name' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the schema only supplies min/max length. The description compensates partially by conveying that the value must match exactly and case-sensitively, which is real semantic value, but it gives no format or naming-convention guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('symbol lookup') and qualifies scope with 'exact, case-sensitive,' which sets it apart from a fuzzy search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling lsl_search_reference, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Exact, case-sensitive' implies when this tool is appropriate (when you already know the symbol's spelling), and the existence of lsl_search_reference makes the alternative inferable. However, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement or sibling name is given explicitly.

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