ddb_get_equipment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint by noting 'Requires login,' which is not captured in the annotations, and clarifies the item categories it handles. While it doesn't discuss error handling, the added auth requirement justifies a strong score.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and object, while the second covers scope and authentication. Every clause earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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, the description is complete: it states the return value ('full stats and description'), the supported item types, and the login requirement. Annotations cover safety, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear description of what is returned. It doesn't detail exact stat fields, but that is acceptable for the tool's low complexity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear name description and examples. The tool description adds further semantic value by specifying the valid item categories (mundane weapons, armour, adventuring gear, magic items) and additional examples ('Longbow', 'Plate'), which help the agent construct valid queries and understand the parameter's domain.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly states the resource: 'full stats and description of any item or equipment in the D&D Beyond compendium by name.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like ddb_search_equipment by focusing on direct retrieval by name and enumerates supported categories (weapons, armour, gear, magic items), making the tool's 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as ddb_search_equipment or ddb_get_monster. It only states 'Requires login' as a prerequisite but does not explain use cases, exclusions, or when a search tool would be more appropriate.

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