ddb_get_condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the auth-related detail that no login is required, which is useful behavioral context. It also describes the return type as 'rules text' but does not cover error handling or exact formatting, so some transparency gaps remain.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action, includes helpful examples, and notes the access requirement. There is no redundancy or wasted wording; every element contributes to understanding.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with read-only annotations, the description is adequate: it states the purpose, access requirements, and general output. The lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity mean that not explaining return values or error cases is acceptable, though slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 for the single 'name' parameter, including example values. The tool description repeats similar examples and adds no significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 directly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('rules text for a D&D condition'), including concrete examples like Blinded and Charmed. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as ddb_get_rules, which would handle general rules, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by specifying that the tool looks up condition rules and adds that no login is required, giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can easily infer appropriate use.

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