arsenkin_request_hash_lookup

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. It adds a valuable non-obvious behavioral guarantee: the lookup does not expose job or provider payload data. 'Look up' also implies a read-only operation. It does not discuss error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple lookup tool the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource, the exactness, and the crucial privacy guarantee.

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 with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It states the object of lookup, the privacy behavior, and implies a read-only operation. The main gap is parameter-level detail, but given the simplicity of the input schema and the availability of an output schema, the description is close to complete.

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, but it provides no details about request_hashes beyond the parameter name. It does not explain where these hashes come from, what format they should be in, whether duplicates are handled, or if there is a maximum batch size. The phrase 'server-ledger hashes' weakly links the parameter to the tool's purpose, but no real semantic guidance is added.

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: 'Look up exact server-ledger hashes.' It further differentiates itself from payload-returning siblings by explicitly saying it does so 'without exposing job or provider payload data,' which is a clear distinction from tools like get_result or export_result.

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 appropriate when exact ledger hashes are needed and payload data should not be exposed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Usage context is present only by implication, not by direct guidance.

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