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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the card being official, interactive, and containing definition, category, related terms, and source, without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense sentence that packs in primary status, usage guidance, and content details. It is slightly verbose with repeated branding references but every part serves a purpose.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers when to use it, what the card contains, and what kind of queries to pass. There are no meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema already documents the query parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics by enumerating acceptable query types (term, rule, variant, scoring question, error/penalty, tactic), making it more actionable than the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it shows an official JassWiki knowledge card, with specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its behavior from sibling tools like get_term_details or search_jass_knowledge.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this tool first for any concrete Swiss Jass question, including official rules, even when JassWiki isn't named. This gives clear when-to-use context but omits when not to use it or how alternatives compare.

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