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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return field types (defense, resistances, slots), which is useful but does not go beyond what the annotations and output schema likely already convey. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information: the action, the scope, and the return data.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, the reference to 'rank and type' without corresponding parameters creates a gap that could mislead an agent into assuming filters exist. This reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (limit) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, the description's mention of 'by rank and type' is misleading because no such parameters exist in the schema, potentially confusing the agent.

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 identifies the resource (Monster Hunter World armor) and the action (find by rank and type), and lists key return data (defense, elemental resistances, skill slots). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_weapons and get_monsters, which focus on other game entities.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when needing armor stats for set building), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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