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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context: it runs an engine preflight on the script and returns a reduced engine_view reflecting what the engine executes, explicitly clarifying that the reduced view is not the monster itself. That's a meaningful disclosure beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the key outputs. Parenthetical clarifications are tight. Slightly dense and in French only, but no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still names the main outputs and the engine_view caveat. Annotations cover safety. The only gap is the monster_id parameter format, which is neither in the schema nor the description.

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% and the single parameter monster_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description lists monster type examples (invictus, chimera, etc.) which hints at valid IDs but doesn't define the format or say whether monster_id is one of those names. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: 'Détail d'un monstre ArenaScript' and enumerates what detail (published script, engineCompatible, engine_view). It names monster types and the concept of engine compatibility, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_arenascript_monsters and get_monster_evolution_log. It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it below 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't say to use it after listing monsters, or to prefer get_monster_evolution_log for history. Usage is implied only by the resource (monster detail).

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