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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: data is scraped from wiki.facepunch.com, cached for 30 minutes, and drops are ordered highest chance first. It does not cover error behavior or cache staleness beyond the 30-minute note, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then uses the remaining space to enumerate return fields because no output schema exists. Despite the dense field list, every clause carries useful information and there is 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete return-shape overview and notes provenance and caching. The parameter source is already documented in the schema, so an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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% for the single source_id parameter, and the schema already explains that IDs come from loot tables, monuments, or an item's loot_sources. The prose adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific retrieval: one loot table for a loot source, including all drops and detailed fields. The 'one loot table' framing implicitly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings, but it never names list_loot_sources or otherwise explicitly differentiates among alternatives.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_loot_sources or other lookups. The source_id schema description does indicate where IDs can come from, but the prose itself offers no when/when-not routing or alternatives.

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