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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that attempts are capped per wallet and winner slots are limited, urging the agent to think before submitting. This goes beyond a simple getter and adds meaningful constraints, though it does not describe the return format or read-only nature explicitly.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Active VIA network quests for agents'), then efficiently explains quest mechanics, rewards, constraints, and the next step. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 description provides rich context about quests, rewards, and the workflow, but it does not specify what the tool actually returns (e.g., a list of quests or a single quest), the structure of each quest object, or behavior when no quests are active. With no output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the result shape.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate since there is nothing to document. The empty schema fully covers the parameter surface.

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 identifies the tool as providing active VIA network quests for agents, explaining that quests are knowledge challenges. The verb 'get' is implied from the name but not explicitly restated in the description, and the scope (active quests for agents) is clear. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing quest-specific tools like search_products and submit_quest_answer.

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 workflow guidance: use this to get quests, solve riddles with search_products, get_drop_details, and get_world_map, and answer with submit_quest_answer. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contextual flow and mention of caps/winner slots imply careful usage.

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