ddb_encounter_cr

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is true, and the description adds meaningful context: it discloses the default rules edition (2024 XDMG) and the four output encounter shapes. It doesn't contradict the annotations. Minor gap: the return format is not fully detailed, but the annotation and description cover the core behavioral expectations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds information: what it does, the default/alternative rules, and the companion tool. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description indicates the output breakdown (solo boss, duo, squad, horde) and notes the optional monster_count filter. The parameter schema is thorough. It could mention error conditions or exact return structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context, the description covers the necessary context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds cross-tool semantics by stating the party parameter is 'same format as ddb_rate_encounter,' improving consistency. It also reinforces the rules_edition default and behavior, which the schema already described. This small extra guidance bumps the score to 4.

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 states a clear action: 'Given a party and a target difficulty, returns the CR to aim for.' It specifies the resource (CR for encounter) and the scope (broken down by encounter shape). It distinguishes from the sibling ddb_rate_encounter by stating 'No monster lookup required' and referencing the companion tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use with ddb_rate_encounter to verify a specific monster list,' which indicates when to use this tool versus an alternative. It also clarifies 'No monster lookup required,' guiding the user to avoid unnecessary monster searches. The default rules_edition and the option to switch to '2014' are clearly stated.

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