Check character coherence

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating operation, so the description's job is to add substance — and it does, by disclosing that the analysis has three distinct components including an interview generated from the card's own content and causal-link tracing. It stops short of saying what the response looks like or how issues are reported, which is the remaining 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?

The check categories are front-loaded and the input contract follows, so the agent gets the important information first. It is a single dense sentence pair with no filler, though the clause about the interview testing 'every causal link back to the core' is somewhat elaborate for a tool header.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and an open-ended nested card object, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and tells you where the card shape is defined. It is slightly thin on what the returned analysis looks like, but no output schema exists to carry that burden and the described components imply the shape of the result.

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% so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by clarifying an exclusivity relationship the schema does not express: the two parameters are alternatives ('either ... or'), whereas the schema marks neither required and provides no oneOf. It also points to character_save as the source of truth for the card's shape, which the schema leaves as an unconstrained object.

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 names a specific verb (checks) and resource (a card) and enumerates exactly what the check covers: schema completeness, mechanical red flags (generic filler, repeats, want = need, thin core), and a generated coherence interview. That level of specificity clearly separates it from siblings like character_save, character_get, and character_list.

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?

It states that you may pass either a draft card or the id of a saved one, which implies use at draft time or review time, but it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what the recommended workflow is (e.g., check before saving). Usage is implied rather than prescribed, and no exclusions are given.

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