get_spell_by_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list of spells, their details), any limitations (e.g., max results), or error conditions. For a data-fetching tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to handle results.

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 description implies a 'level' parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter's type, range (0-9), and that 0 represents cantrips. The description doesn't elaborate on semantics like how spells are filtered or returned, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all spells of a specific level'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_spells_by_class' or 'search_spells', which could also retrieve spells based on different criteria, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_spells_by_class', 'get_spells_for_class', and 'search_spells' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for filtering by level only, if it's more efficient for level-based queries, or what contexts it's best suited for, leaving the agent to guess.

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