get_monsters_by_cr_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get all monsters' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, what the return format looks like (list of monsters with what fields?), or if there's pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get all monsters' (action), 'within a specific challenge rating range' (scope), 'for encounter planning' (context). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the purpose well but doesn't address behavioral aspects (read-only vs. mutation, rate limits) or describe the return format. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering parameters, more context about the response structure would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'challenge rating range' which aligns with min_cr/max_cr, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get all monsters') and resource ('within a specific challenge rating range'), with explicit purpose ('for encounter planning'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_monsters_by_cr' (which likely gets by exact CR) and 'search_monsters' (which likely has broader search capabilities).

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 provides clear context ('for encounter planning'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_monsters_by_cr' or 'search_monsters' for different use cases, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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