lookup_reference_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety and side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'look up codes,' such as rate limits or authentication needs, thus providing minimal additional transparency.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and purpose. No extraneous words or redundant details.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description fails to guide parameter usage (e.g., valid collection values, query format). With 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent uncertain about how to correctly invoke the tool, making it incomplete for usage decisions.

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 explain parameters. It names categories like 'parameter, statistic, site-type, state, county, or other codes' but does not clarify the meaning of the 'collection' parameter, the optional 'query' object, or 'max_rows.' The description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Look up parameter, statistic, site-type, state, county, or other codes.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('look up' + 'reference data') and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_observations or search_monitoring_locations by focusing on generic code lookups.

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?

The description implies the tool is for looking up various codes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_monitoring_locations or search_sites. No usage exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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