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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the permission exception (private adventure + campaign member => recaps-only 200 instead of 403) and shape variations (`recapsOnly`, `hasLinkedCampaigns` vs `playCampaignIds`). It also clarifies the informational campaign-link behavior, which is not visible in 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 long but every clause carries a distinct fact: payload, campaign non-sync, parent-series handling, and the auth exception. The main action is front-loaded, with edge-case detail following in a logical order.

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 a one-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description covers all call-relevant context: access requirements, exceptions, related-tool routing, and linked-campaign behavior. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single `id` parameter is already described in the schema as a Mongo `_id` with minLength 1 (coverage 100%), so the description has little left to add. It reinforces that the operation is by-id and mentions `parent` ids, but does not alter or extend the schema semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch one adventure by id,' and enumerates the payload components (settings, ruleset, recommended level, linked play campaigns). It clearly differentiates from the sibling list/recap tools, and the parent-series clause names the exact sibling for related parts.

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 routes to imagine_list_adventure_parts when a parent is populated, and notes the minimal shape is 'enough to call imagine_get_adventure_recaps.' It also warns that imagine and play do not auto-sync state, preventing misuse of the campaign link.

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