Get an article's infobox

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful return-shape behavior: fields outside the main block are prefixed with their group (e.g., 'Devil Fruit – Type'), which helps an agent interpret results. It does not discuss missing-infobox behavior, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 only three sentences, all of which carry useful information: the core output format, per-type field examples, and the group-prefix convention. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the output structure and field categories reasonably well. It does not specify behavior for articles without infoboxes or error/edge cases, and lacks explicit guidance relative to sibling tools, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

The single parameter title is fully documented by the schema (100% coverage), including an example and redirect behavior. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: retrieving an article's infobox as label/value pairs, with concrete field examples for characters and other entity types. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with get_page/get_page_sections, but the infobox focus makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the field lists tell the agent what data is available for characters, Devil Fruits, arcs, ships, and places, so when an infobox is needed this tool is the natural choice. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_page, search_wiki, or other siblings, nor when not to call it.

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