get_insignia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists the data content and source table. It does not explicitly say that it returns a single item by name, how name matching works, or what happens on no match.

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 a compact, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It packs item type, source table, item count, and content fields into one line, though it lacks a verb and reads more as a label than a full tool description.

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-parameter lookup tool, the description conveys the core domain and return content adequately. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps around exact lookup semantics and sibling-tool differentiation, especially given the existence of get_crest and get_equipment.

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 defines a single required 'name' string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the expected name format, whether it must be exact, or how to reference a specific insignia.

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 precisely—'Insignia/crest-item (Equipment table, 208 items)'—and names its key contents: per-level Hp/Attack and effect text. It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_crest or get_equipment.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_crest or get_equipment. The description implies it is for insignia/crest items, but it gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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