getMonsterById

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., stats, abilities, weaknesses), whether it's a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, or performance characteristics like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the returned data structure (e.g., what 'detailed information' entails) and behavioral aspects like error cases, which would help an agent use it correctly. The absence of annotations exacerbates these gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'monsterId' clearly documented as 'ID of the monster to retrieve'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or valid ranges. Given the high schema coverage, 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 the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific monster by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMonsterByName' or 'getMonsterByHabitat', which also retrieve monster information but use different identifiers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getMonsterByName' (for name-based lookup) or 'getMonsterByHabitat' (for habitat-based filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid monster ID.

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