get_fighter_spec

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the burden is lower. The description adds the fact that the contract is 'public', hinting no auth is required, plus a read-ordering recommendation, but nothing about latency, caching, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose leads, and the operational advice follows immediately.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not describe return shapes, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains is an unusually simple single-enum tool, and the description handles it adequately, though it could say a bit more about how the sections relate to each other.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, but the enum values (overview, guide, schema, example) are fairly self-describing. The description does name three of the four values and implies overview should be read first, adding light ordering semantics beyond the raw enum.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the public AI Fighter authoring contract'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling validate_fighter_manifest. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the resource is precise enough to distinguish them.

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?

Gives concrete sequencing guidance ('Read overview first; request guide, schema, or example as needed'), which tells the agent how to consume the sections incrementally. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use this tool or pointing at the sibling as an alternative.

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