get_character_symbol_equipment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool queries information, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose requirements (valid OCID, date format constraints), the optionality of the date parameter, or any response characteristics. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the key resource type (symbol equipment) is stated up front.

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 lookup tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance and behavioral context, but since output schema covers return values and the schema covers parameters, these are minor.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (ocid and date with YYYY-MM-DD format). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb-plus-resource: it retrieves character symbol (Arcane/Authentic) equipment information. The qualifier 'symbol (Arcane/Authentic)' differentiates it from sibling equipment tools like get_character_item_equipment and get_character_cashitem_equipment, though it does not explicitly name any siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_character_item_equipment or get_character_basic. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals (e.g., needing an OCID obtained from get_character_ocid first). Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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