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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: spoiler-bounded summaries rather than manuscript prose, and no authentication required, plus ID chaining behavior.

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?

Tight, front-loaded sentences; the operation list is repeated from the enum but functions as a routing summary. Slightly redundant but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('spoiler-bounded summaries, not manuscript prose'). Minor gap: it does not indicate what each individual operation returns.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: compare_worlds requires 2–5 world IDs, find_best_world uses a query, and IDs must come from results rather than display names. That exceeds what the enum alone conveys.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus resource (public narrative knowledge) and a full enumeration of the naming operations, so the agent knows exactly what capability this is. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling search_public_story_records tool.

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 gives an explicit exclusion ('use search_public_story_records for historical system events, not narrative-world dossiers') and tells the agent to source entity/world IDs from prior results. It does not, however, advise when to pick one operation over another among the seven.

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