background_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, and 'Returns the complete entry with description merged in' discloses a useful output behavior beyond the schema. It does not address not-found or error behavior, but for a simple lookup that is a minor gap.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main operation and return behavior are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is separated cleanly into the second sentence.

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 low-complexity get tool, the description adequately covers purpose, return behavior, and when to choose it over the search sibling. Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, and no output schema is needed given the explicit 'complete entry' statement.

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?

All three parameters already have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description only repeats the 'exact name' concept and does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'a specific D&D 5e character background', and the selection criterion 'by exact name.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'background_search', making tool selection 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 an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer this over background_search when you have an exact name.' This names the alternative and gives the condition that selects this tool, which is strong usage guidance.

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