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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies that the tool returns complete raw JSON, including all system fields, which informs the agent about the response's nature and completeness. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 redundancy. The core purpose ('Get the complete raw JSON data') is front-loaded, followed by a concise usage guideline. Every word 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 simple retrieval tool with two clearly documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and when to use it. The only minor omission is the lack of mention of potential errors or size concerns, but these are not critical for agent selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%: both packId and documentId have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get the complete raw JSON data') and the resource ('compendium document'), explicitly mentioning 'including all system fields'. It differentiates from the sibling compendium-document-get by the word 'raw', making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this when you need the full statblock data for calculations or detailed information.' This gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling compendium-document-get is implied as the more structured alternative.

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