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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that definitions are read-only and that values are on get_map, which is useful behavioral context. However, beyond this definitions-vs-values distinction, it does not disclose much additional behavior not already covered by 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 three sentences, all informative: what it returns, where values live, and how definitions are edited. No filler or redundancy, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, so the description covers the essential context (definitions vs. values, builtins, dashboard editing). Since there is no output schema, it could be more explicit about the response structure, but the high-level description is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds that kind selects 'character or asset' which aligns with the schema enum, but does not significantly deepen understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states it returns typed custom-field definitions for characters or assets, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_map (which carries per-placement values) and get_character/get_asset (which likely return the full entity).

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 explicitly contrasts with get_map and mentions that definitions are edited in the dashboard. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and exclusions, though it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need definitions', but it's strongly implied.

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