character_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose payload content and one caveat (the category tag is imperfect), but says nothing about read-only nature, permission requirements, lookup/matching behavior, or output format. That is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One compact sentence with the scope framing front-loaded and no filler. The bracketed '[WORD · internal]' prefix is jargon but brief, so the structure is efficient overall.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description does useful work by stating the return payload (summary plus verses) and its known imperfection. However, it leaves the only parameter unexplained and offers no guidance on matching or invocation, so it is only minimally complete for a lookup tool.

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% and the single 'name' parameter (maxLength 4000) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies you supply a Bible figure, but gives no guidance on name format, spelling/alias handling, or matching semantics, which matters for a dictionary lookup.

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 the specific resource (a Bible figure from Easton's Bible Dictionary) and what the payload contains (summary plus every verse that mentions them, found and attributed). That is far more informative than a sibling like characters_browse, though it never names that sibling or uses an explicit retrieval verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative characters_browse for browsing versus this single-figure lookup. The only framing is the cryptic '[WORD · internal]' tag, which does not tell an agent when this tool is the right pick.

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