getMonsterByName

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: partial matching and a limit of 5 results, which are valuable beyond basic 'get' functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key constraints. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and behavioral constraints but lacks details on output format or error cases. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.

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 schema already documents the 'name' parameter as 'Name of the monster to search for (can be partial).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely restating 'partial match.' Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get monsters by name' specifies the verb (get) and resource (monsters). It distinguishes from siblings like getMonsterById and getMonsters by focusing on name-based retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getMonsterByHabitat, which is a similar lookup but by different criteria.

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 context through 'partial match, returns up to 5 matches,' suggesting it's for fuzzy name searches with result limits. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like getMonsterById (exact ID match) or getMonsters (full list). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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