character_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds important beyond-annotation context: data is a saved snapshot and may be stale, and freshness depends on last logout, /reload or /coach. It does not cover error behavior, but that is minor for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by usage, coverage, freshness caveat, and Args. There is slight repetition in the field lists (quests/talents/gear/gold/location), but otherwise no meaningless padding.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: scope, Markdown format, freshness, and argument semantics. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does. It explains character can be 'Testchar' or 'Name-Realm', is case-insensitive, and may be omitted to use the most recently saved character.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Get the full current status of a WoW character as Markdown,' with enumerated coverage. It is clear this is a comprehensive snapshot rather than a list or wiki lookup, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

Gives concrete triggers: player asks what to do next, what to upgrade, or about quests, talents, gear, gold or location. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as progress_summary.

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