lookup-syntax

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a record based on exact syntax matching, but doesn't describe what happens if no match is found (e.g., returns null, error), whether it's case-sensitive, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses backticks to highlight the parameter name. Every element earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), one simple parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance. For a lookup tool with output schema support, this is adequate but leaves the agent to infer important operational aspects.

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. It explains that the 'syntax' parameter is used for exact matching, which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it doesn't provide examples of valid syntax values, format requirements, or constraints. With one undocumented parameter, the description adds some but incomplete semantic context.

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 the verb ('Return') and resource ('record') with a specific matching condition ('whose `syntax` exactly matches the input'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'semantic-search' by emphasizing exact matching rather than broader searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'keywords-for', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'semantic-search'. It mentions the exact matching condition, but doesn't explain scenarios where this is preferred over other tools or any prerequisites for usage. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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