hero_powerstats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description discloses nothing about failure modes for invalid IDs, whether the ID namespace matches hero_get_by_id's, or what the statistics consist of. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but there is no wasted prose to trim.

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-param read with no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits what 'power statistics' actually contains (e.g. intelligence, strength, speed, durability, power, combat) and how the ID relates to other hero endpoints, leaving real ambiguity for the agent.

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% for the single parameter (id: 'Character ID'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the domain context that the ID refers to a superhero/villain, and nothing about the expected ID format or valid range. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Get power statistics for a superhero/villain.' An agent knows the operation is a stats retrieval keyed to a character. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling hero_get_by_id or hero_all, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which hero tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing against the obvious siblings hero_get_by_id (likely returns the full character) and hero_all (likely lists characters). The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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