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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral context beyond it by noting that results include rewards and that legend/dangers require a separate tibia_get call. This tells agents what the tool returns and what it does not, though it does not mention pagination or defaults.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: purpose, example, and follow-up instruction. It is front-loaded with the core function, uses no filler, and each sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary use case and highlights the relationship to tibia_get. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but the schema provides those details; the description is sufficient for typical queries, though a mention of include_inactive or pagination would strengthen it.

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 description coverage is only 38%, so the description must compensate. It maps the main filters (level, premium, Rookgaard, location) to likely parameters, but does not clarify others like include_inactive, limit, cursor, or the exact behavior of is_premium. Thus it adds partial value but leaves gaps.

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 states the verb (Find), the resource (Tibia quests), and the key filters (level, premium, Rookgaard, location) along with output (rewards). This distinguishes it from sibling find_* tools by focusing specifically on quests, and the example query makes the intended use unmistakable.

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 provides a concrete use case ('which quests can a level 20 character do') and explicitly directs users to call tibia_get for additional details, implying when to use this tool versus the follow-up. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among the find_* siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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