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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that the data is indexed backwards from game data and that the tool is free while unmetered. For a read-only lookup tool, this is adequate behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: action, scope, technical detail, and status. No unnecessary words.

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 2 required params and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and parameters. It lacks details on return format, but for a reverse lookup tool the description is mostly 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'excalibur') and expanding on the version enum with clear explanations of each option and noting data differences between versions.

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 uses a specific verb "Reverse lookup" and clearly states the resource: every way to obtain an item. It lists specific sources (outfitter, monsters, treasure tiles), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_monster or query_equipment.

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 explains this tool is for reverse lookup and is not readable from the item record alone, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context is clear.

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