lookup_monster

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 returns data, Chinese name, and source citation, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the lookup is exact-match only, case-sensitive, whether partial matches are allowed, what happens on no match, or any rate limits. For a read-only lookup tool, this is a moderate gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key return values. Every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose and return values. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't specify the exact structure of the returned data, error behavior, or matching rules. It's adequate for a basic lookup but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 0%, and the description only says the query can be a Chinese/English name or slug. It doesn't explain the expected format (e.g., should the slug be URL-encoded, are spaces trimmed, is it case-insensitive). The single parameter 'query' is minimally documented in the schema, and the description adds only the type of value, not the semantics of matching behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('查' = look up) and resource ('SRD 怪物' = SRD monsters), and specifies the query types (Chinese/English name or slug). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_spell, lookup_condition, and lookup_rule by naming the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when to use this tool: when you need SRD monster data by name or slug. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like monsters_by_cr or semantic_search, which could also be used to find monsters. The context is clear enough for a simple lookup, but no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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