get_character

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds valuable lifecycle behavior beyond that: polling semantics, state values (COMPLETE/FAILED), the presence of estimatedSecondsWaitTime during processing, and the exact URL fields returned. This is exactly the kind of context annotations 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?

The description is compact yet information-dense, front-loading the main purpose before detailing the polling lifecycle and resulting URLs. Every clause earns its place and the structure follows the natural call flow.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key response fields and gives enough polling context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It could additionally describe failure payloads or other possible uploadStatus values, but those are minor gaps for a single-parameter, read-only tool.

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 100%: the single characterID parameter has its own description and example. The description does not add new parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names the exact resource ('a character's details') plus the distinctive payload (uploadStatus and presigned download URLs). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_characters and other get_* tools by resource and purpose.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Poll this after submitting an upload until uploadStatus is COMPLETE (or FAILED)'. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it falls just 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.