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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: cross-system behavior (non-dnd5e sections such as skills or currency stay empty) and the fallback to uuid-resolve for the raw document. No contradiction with 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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler: purpose is front-loaded with the content list, followed by prerequisite sequencing, downstream consumers, and the cross-system caveat. 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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich safety annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers output contents, ID prerequisites, downstream tool dependencies, and system-specific behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — actorId is already documented as 'Actor ID (from actor-list or actor-filter)'. The description reinforces where the ID comes from and its downstream use, but adds no format, syntax, or example detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full actor details') and enumerates the content (HP, AC, abilities, skills, speed, proficiency, inventory with item IDs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings actor-list and actor-filter, which are the ID-finding tools referenced in the same sentence.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing ('Use actor-list or actor-filter FIRST to find actorId'), names downstream consumers of the item IDs (dnd5e-roll-attack, dnd5e-roll-damage, dnd5e-item-use), and points to uuid-resolve as the alternative for raw document access. Lacks an explicit 'do not use when X' exclusion, but the routing guidance is strong.

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