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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'active effects' scoping and explains what effects do in general, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error behavior (e.g., missing actor) or return structure. With annotations in place, this is a reasonable middle score.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope; the second adds useful conceptual context about effects. 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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is adequate. It defines the return scope ('all active effects') and gives examples of effect types. It lacks an explicit return format, but no output schema exists and the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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%, so the actorId parameter is already fully documented. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation for high 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all active effects on an actor'), and enumerates the kinds of effects returned (conditions, buffs, debuffs, custom). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like effect-create, effect-delete, effect-update, and effect-toggle-status, which all alter effects rather than list them.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: any time you need to see all active effects on an actor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or add exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and read-only intent is clear, so an agent can infer the correct context without confusion.

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