get_character_reputation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches a webpage from an external site, but provides no information about possible errors, rate limits, authentication, page format, or how the output is structured. This is minimal disclosure for the agent to predict runtime 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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies how the output should be consumed. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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?

The tool is simple (2-param read operation) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It is adequate for basic invocation, but it lacks any mention of when to prefer this over get_character_info or what to expect if the page is unavailable, making it slightly incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

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 description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's clear definitions of 'realm' and 'character_name'. It correctly names 'character' but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('World of Warcraft character reputation page from Blizzard's Armory website'). It accurately differentiates the tool from the sibling get_character_info by limiting scope to reputation, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 implies usage ('The LLM can then interpret this page to answer questions about the character'), giving context that this tool is for reputation-related questions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to the sibling get_character_info, leaving the selection logic partly to inference.

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