ddb_get_monster

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the two output modes (compact vs full) and lists what the full statblock includes, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on lookup failure (e.g., monster not found), any authentication/rate-limit considerations, or explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation. The description gives good detail on output but omits error handling and side-effect guarantees.

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 with no filler. The purpose and default behavior are front-loaded, and the optional expansion is explained in the second sentence. Every word adds value, and it is easy to scan.

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 lookup tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent exactly what it returns in both modes and how to specify the target. It does not cover error cases or edge behavior, but these are minor for a straightforward get operation. The absence of an output schema increases the need to describe return contents, which the description does well.

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 only 50% (nameOrId has no schema description). The description compensates by clarifying that nameOrId can be a name or numeric id. It also explains the default behavior of the 'full' parameter and what 'full' returns. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 ('Get') and resource ('monster stats from the D&D Beyond compendium'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by name or numeric id'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ddb_get_character or ddb_get_party_snapshot by focusing on monsters.

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 it: whenever you need monster stats. It provides clear context (monster lookup) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The distinction from siblings is implicit but strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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