check_stolen_items_on_character

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for guard searches,' implying a read-only check, but does not specify permissions required, whether it modifies data, response format, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage hint. It is efficient with zero wasted words, 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (33%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond the schema, and expected outputs. For a tool with 3 parameters and potential complexity in a gaming context, more context is needed.

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 33% (only 'checkerId' has a description), and the tool has 3 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameters like 'characterId' or 'sessionId'. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, but the schema provides some basic structure, warranting a baseline score.

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: 'Check if a character carries stolen items.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('character'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_item_stolen' or 'search_items', which might have overlapping functionality. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 implied usage context with 'Useful for guard searches,' suggesting a scenario for application. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_item_stolen' or 'search_items', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but limited.

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