ddb_get_character_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the response size (300–500 KB), the requirement for confirm_large_response: true, and the login prerequisite. No contradiction exists. It stops short of detailing the raw JSON structure, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core function, the alternative recommendation, and the login prerequisite. The most important info (returns raw large JSON) is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a specialized, read-only raw getter, the description covers the essential operational details: size, confirmation flag, login requirement, and the recommended normal-use alternative. There is no output schema, but the description clarifies what is returned (character JSON) and when to use it. Minor gap: it doesn't explain how 'raw' differs from the non-raw version beyond size, but this is adequately implied.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of confirm_large_response by tying it to the large response size, adding meaning beyond the schema's const=true definition. This helps the agent understand why the parameter exists and why it must be true.

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 specific action ('Returns raw 300–500 KB character JSON') and clearly differentiates from the sibling ddb_get_character by positioning it as the raw/large variant. It also names the alternative for normal use, making the tool's niche unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use ddb_get_character instead for all normal use' and 'Requires login — run ddb_login first if you haven't already.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool and what prerequisites must be met, including an alternative tool to prefer.

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