get_spell_details

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. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling for invalid spell names, or the format/structure of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates what the tool does ('Get detailed information about a specific D&D 5E spell') with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 presumably returns complex spell data. It doesn't hint at what 'detailed information' encompasses (e.g., casting time, components, effects), which is critical context for an agent to understand the tool's utility and output expectations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'spell_name' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, format constraints, or validation rules). This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific D&D 5E spell'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_spell_by_level', 'search_spells', or 'get_spell_list_details', which all relate to spells but serve different purposes.

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 multiple spell-related sibling tools (e.g., 'search_spells', 'get_spell_by_level', 'get_spell_list_details'), there's no indication that this tool is for retrieving detailed information about a single, known spell rather than searching, filtering, or listing spells.

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