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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the permission model: you can read your own character, or anyone's if you are the GM. It does not cover failure behavior for a missing character or campaign, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences that front-load the payload contents, with zero filler. The colon-and-list style is fragmented but efficient; the trailing 'Returns: The character bundle' restates the opening rather than adding 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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description lists what categories the bundle contains, which helps an agent anticipate the return value. However, 'Returns: The character bundle' is uninformative about structure or size, and nothing is said about not-found behavior or whether this is a heavy/slow call.

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 100%, so both parameters (campaign by slug or id, character by slug) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about identifier formats or resolution behavior beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (a whole character) and enumerates what the bundle contains: sheet, spent/taken resources (hit points, slots, conditions), homebrew, custom items and companions. This distinguishes it from list_characters and get_character_draft by scope, though it never uses an explicit verb and does not name those siblings directly.

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?

'Yours, or anybody's if you are the GM' implies the access rule for using it, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_character_draft, get_party, or list_characters. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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