get_enchantment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add context by stating that data is per-level and comes from static game data, implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not disclose matching behavior, exact return contents, or failure behavior when a name is not found.

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?

The description is one compact sentence with useful examples and no filler. The colon-separated structure is slightly compressed, but it is front-loaded with the key definition and stays efficient.

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 one-parameter lookup, the description conveys the core purpose: get per-level enchantment data from game data. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the exact return shape and lookup mechanics under-specified, so an agent would be partly guessing about the response structure.

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 schema provides zero description for the 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It supplies concrete example values ('Bold Ambition', 'Forest Ward') and clarifies that the names are Soul-Arms skills, which gives useful semantic grounding. It still does not explicitly state that the parameter must be an enchantment name or specify case sensitivity and formatting.

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 identifies the resource ('Enchantment = Soul-Arms skill') and the data shape ('per-level from game data'), so an agent can tell this is a lookup for enchantment skill data. It stops short of an explicit active verb like 'retrieves', making it slightly less direct than the 5 bar.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_soularm, get_talent, or search_game_data. The description defines what an enchantment is, but it never states exclusivity, exclusions, or selection criteria relative to sibling tools.

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