monster_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior information ('Returns the complete entry with description merged in'), but it does not disclose not-found behavior, duplicate-name disambiguation nuances, or response format specifics. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to prefer it. The key fact (exact name lookup) is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy.

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 exact-name lookup with well-described parameters, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the matching behavior, and the return shape. Minor gaps like not-found behavior and duplicate-name disambiguation are not covered, but the absence of an output schema is partially offset by the 'complete entry' return 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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'exact name' phrasing reinforces the required 'name' parameter but does not add material meaning beyond the schema.

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'), a specific resource (D&D 5e monster or creature), and the exact-match lookup mode. It also explicitly differentiates this tool from monster_search by naming when to prefer it, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: prefer this over monster_search when you have an exact name. This directly tells the agent when to use the tool versus an alternative, leaving little ambiguity.

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