bg3_level_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is inspected (added/removed passives, AddSpells with source, ActionResource boosts, level choices), but never states that the operation is read-only, whether it mutates anything, or what permissions/state it requires.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core comparison and then lists the checked categories. No filler, though the enumeration is packed tightly enough that it reads more like a spec fragment than guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description does cover the compared categories. However, the unexplained 'layers' parameter and the absence of any when-to-use framing leave real gaps for a verification tool with many overlapping siblings.

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 single 'layers' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on what a layer is or how it affects the comparison. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('host with its class/subclass progressions up to its current level') and enumerates the checked categories (passives, AddSpells, ActionResource boosts, choices). It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like bg3_progression or bg3_level_up, though the domain term 'host' is left unexplained.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bg3_progression, bg3_ingame_check, or bg3_level_up. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'compare', and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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