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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it scopes the read to a single field of a larger model rather than the whole title config, and explains that item IDs resolve against the Item catalogue and costs against Currency — useful cross-reference behavior an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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, no filler, and the read-only scope is front-loaded before the content enumeration. Slightly dense in the second sentence's list of sub-fields, but every clause carries information.

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 usefully explains what the returned Craft field contains and how its identifiers relate to other catalogues — exactly the gap an output schema would normally fill. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents title_id (including its Russian description). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail for the parameter, which is fine given the schema does the work; the baseline for a well-documented single param is a 4.

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 ('GET ONLY') plus the exact resource ('the Craft field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel') and enumerates its contents (inputs, output item, success rate, time cost, station/skill prerequisites). This clearly separates it from sibling getters like get_item and get_currency, which the description explicitly names as related catalogues.

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?

'GET ONLY' implies a read and hints that the corresponding writer is save_craft, but no alternative is named and no when/when-not condition is stated. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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