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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description wisely does not repeat that. It adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the full grammar of creature ability `area` grids, the meaning of effectTiles, and the caveat that effectOnCaster is wiki-stated rather than read from the grid. That is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, and the later area-grid passage is dense but not padded. Each clause adds a distinct semantic fact. It is longer than typical descriptions, but the length is justified by the genuinely complex output format it explains.

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 four parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers lookup semantics and the one deeply non-obvious output field. It does not describe missing-page behavior in prose, but that is not required given the output schema and the search-first instruction.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `name` must be exact and that `type` resolves shared-name collisions. It does not add much for verbosity/include_inactive, but those are fully described in the schema.

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 opening sentence names the operation ('Full detail') and the resource ('one named Tibia page') and enumerates every page kind, clearly distinguishing it from the search/find siblings. It even routes to tibia_search for uncertain names, so an agent can immediately tell what tibia_get is for.

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 explicitly says to use tibia_search first when the page name is uncertain and to pass `type` to disambiguate shared names. This gives concrete decision rules for the main usage choices without leaving them to inference.

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