caniuse_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose response format, network dependency, or any limitations. It does not contradict annotations because no annotations are present.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, and includes the data source. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what the returned compatibility data looks like or how this tool differs from the sibling browserslist_compatibility_check. These are notable gaps, though the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely call it correctly.

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%, with the 'feature' parameter already well documented and accompanied by examples. The description adds the context of caniuse.com as the data source, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'look up' and a clear resource: compatibility of web features across different browsers, sourced from caniuse.com. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool browserslist_compatibility_check, which likely performs a similar compatibility lookup.

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. It does not mention the sibling tools or any criteria for choosing between caniuse_feature and browserslist_compatibility_check. It simply states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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