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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a non-mutating generator. Beyond the annotations it discloses real behavior: the solver enforces prerequisites, gates, and budgets, so the agent knows constraints are resolved rather than blindly assembled. It stops short of saying what happens on unresolvable talent names or conflicts.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the product, then parameters, then solver behavior. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 correctly states the return value is an importable loadout string. For a 5-param generator with only readOnly annotations, the remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invalid names, unsatisfiable budgets), which is noticeable but not blocking.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden and largely does: it explains include (talents to include, accepted 'by name or id'), hero_tree (optional), and priorities (fills remaining points). Only class and spec are left as bare names, which is close to self-evident.

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 and product: 'Produce a valid, importable loadout string for a class/spec.' That is clearly distinct from decode_build (the inverse) and popular_builds, though it never names a sibling to route against explicitly.

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?

Says how to call it ('Provide talents to include... an optional hero tree, and priority talents') but gives no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer decode_build or popular_builds instead. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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