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

Annotations declare read-only and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: data sources (Warcraft Logs raid kills, Mythic+ leaderboards), current raid tier scope, and the default sampling preference (best-sampled first).

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?

Three dense but front-loaded sentences: comparison target first, then default/override mechanics, then return shape. Slightly packed 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 still describes return values (both loadout strings, hero trees, and the specific diff categories). Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results, though the exact response shape is only described, not structured.

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 60%, and the description compensates by clarifying content_name behavior (omit for overall build, boss/dungeon or 'All' options) and difficulty's role in selecting the comparison target. Doesn't explain region semantics, but that's minor given its enum and default.

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 (compare) and precise resources (live character's talent loadout vs. popular spec build), and names the data sources. An agent can distinguish this from popular_builds (which returns builds without comparison) and get_character (which doesn't compare).

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?

Explains defaults clearly (overall spec build, All Dungeons/All Bosses) and instructs how to narrow scope via content_name/difficulty. Doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools like generate_build or popular_builds, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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