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

Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds real domain behavior: it reads Everloot's current authorized public corpus when connected, a frequency only becomes public after 3 install reports, and an empty window is a measured zero rather than missing data. That zero-vs-absent distinction materially affects interpretation and is not in any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource being fetched and each subsequent clause carries distinct domain information (loot windows, install-report threshold, zero semantics). The middle clause about windows and install reports is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not strictly required, yet the description usefully names what comes back and how to read it. Combined with the annotations and the data-source caveat, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly; missing only explicit routing against sibling page tools.

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%, so the objectId parameter is already well documented. The description's phrase 'the id in its GUID' marginally reinforces the identifier's nature but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema example.

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?

States a specific resource with concrete examples (chest, herb, ore vein, fishing pool) and the keying identifier, so an agent can separate it from item_page/npc_page/quest_page siblings. The retrieval verb is implicit rather than stated ("One game object ... by the id"), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Use is implied by the parallel 'page' family and by the description's fetch-by-id framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion (e.g. vs get_entity or item_page), and no prerequisite statement beyond the connection note at the end.

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