Identify

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (dossier, flags, attacks, interactions, wiki excerpts), how procedural creatures are handled, disambiguation behavior, and error behavior ('no game loaded'). It even decodes a flag example, providing rich context beyond a mere operational description.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, then input forms, output explanation, edge cases, and an explicit alternative. Every sentence adds useful information without padding. It is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, return values, edge cases, and comparison to alternatives. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in a variety of scenarios.

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 100% for the single 'query' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the accepted forms (token, name, unit_id) with concrete examples and linking the contract to game_data, enhancing the schema's description without being redundant.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'fuses THIS WORLD's raws with the DF wiki' to identify creatures and provide handling strategies. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying 'Use this instead of a bare wiki lookup' and referencing game_data as a separate contract.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: what inputs to pass (creature token, name, unit_id), when to prefer this tool over a bare wiki lookup, and what to expect in cases of multiple matches or no game loaded. It directly names an alternative ('wiki lookup') and explains why this tool is better.

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