ddb_get_monster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: that login is required and that matching is partial by name. This helps the agent anticipate authentication needs and understand that vague inputs may return unexpected results. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a critical precondition (login). Every word earns its place, 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 simple single-parameter get tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, and matching behavior. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema is acceptable here since the tool name and context imply a stat block. The description is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 the 'name' parameter already described with examples. The tool description adds the partial-match behavior, which is useful but not essential to parameter semantics. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full stat block for a specific monster'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ddb_search_monsters by focusing on retrieval of a specific monster rather than searching. It also mentions the source (D&D Beyond compendium) and partial-match behavior, making the purpose 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?

The description implies use when you have a monster name and need its full stat block, and it mentions the login requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ddb_search_monsters for finding monsters by criteria), nor does it provide exclusions or fallback scenarios. The usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.

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