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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying output contents ('stats, costs, effects and availability'), a transformation ('cross-references resolved to names'), a hard limit ('up to 25 ids'), and operational cost context ('Free while this deployment runs unmetered'). It does not state failure behavior or explicitly confirm read-only semantics, but the information given is substantive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the batch limit and resolved-reference detail, then a concise operational note about cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a decent sketch of returned content but not the actual record structure or error/partial-failure behavior. It also lacks routing guidance for sibling tools. The description is adequate for a straightforward batch read, but visible gaps remain around output format, language effects, and when to prefer specialized siblings.

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 descriptions cover 2 of 4 parameters (ids and version), leaving kind and lang without schema-level descriptions. The description adds the important constraint that all ids must be 'of one entity kind,' clarifying the relationship between ids and kind. However, it does not compensate for the undocumented lang semantics or describe how kind values map to record types beyond the schema enum.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Returns complete records') and resource ('up to 25 ids of one entity kind'), and adds meaningful scope details such as included fields and resolved cross-references. It is sufficiently clear to distinguish a batch fetch from the singular get_job/get_monster siblings, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of siblings like search, query_equipment, get_job, or get_monster. The schema's ids description says 'Entity ids from search,' which implies a search-then-fetch flow, but the description itself does not state this workflow or any exclusion conditions.

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