get_character_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates the main behavior—retrieving a web page—and indicates the output is page content rather than structured data, but it does not disclose potential concerns like page size, parsing difficulty, external site availability, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action, the second states the purpose. Both sentences earn their place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description names the resource, the returned artifact, and the intended downstream use. It could add sibling guidance or behavioral caveats, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with examples and has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail or format constraints.

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 it retrieves the World of Warcraft character page from Blizzard's Armory, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly call out the sibling tool get_character_reputation, so differentiation relies on the phrase 'character page' rather than a direct contrast.

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 second sentence provides a clear intended use: the LLM can interpret the returned page to answer questions about the character. It gives context but does not mention when to use get_character_reputation instead, so explicit when-not/alternative guidance is missing.

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