speaker_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions latency (~10s) but does not explain side effects of create/upload actions, whether they modify the database, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that can mutate data.

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 compact, uses examples, and front-loads the database name. It could be more structured per action, but for its length it's efficient.

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?

The tool supports five distinct actions with side effects, yet only search and download are illustrated. No output schema is given, so return formats for search/download are undeclared. The create/upload actions lack any parameter guidance beyond 'action-specific parameter,' making the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers both parameters, and description adds example usage and clarifies the 'params' field as 'Speaker name or action-specific parameter,' which helps disambiguate the generic 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?

Clearly states it searches the WCC Google Drive speaker database and enumerates the supported actions. However, the tool name 'speaker_lookup' suggests read-only lookup, while actions include create/upload, which slightly muddies the purpose.

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 a specific use case: 'Use before drafting to reuse existing speaker bios.' This gives clear when-to-use context. Does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but among sibling tools, none competes for speaker database access.

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