wwa_pitfalls_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the data provenance ('real agent failures — not LLM hallucinations') and scope ('deployment, packaging, tooling, configuration'), giving agents confidence in what the search returns. It does not detail edge cases or result format, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.

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?

Four tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then add source credibility, coverage scope, and a usage call-to-action. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

This is a simple 3-parameter search tool with no output schema. The description fully enables an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, covering purpose, data source, and scope. No additional return-value explanation is critical for this low-complexity tool.

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% (query, limit, category all have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics beyond schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search known failure patterns and verified fixes.' It clearly differentiates from sibling search tools like wwa_facts_query and wwa_bid_search by focusing on pitfalls and failure patterns, and adds credibility with 'real agent failures — not LLM hallucinations.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Before debugging something new, check here first — someone probably broke it already.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it lacks full exclusion logic present in a 5.

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