get_pet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavior: pet bonuses are team-wide auras and are excluded from hero_stats_calc's per-hero flat stats. It also lists the lookup return fields. It omits error/edge-case behavior, but for a simple read lookup this is acceptable.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core lookup purpose is front-loaded and the important cross-tool caveat is attached as a short note.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description states the input context and the fields returned, and flags the team-wide aura nuance. It could add an example or mention invalid-name behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 exposes a single required string 'name' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the description does not explicitly explain the accepted format. However, 'Pet lookup' makes it reasonably clear that 'name' is the pet name, so the description provides minimal compensating context.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb+resource ('Pet lookup') and explicitly names the Pet table, plus the returned fields (id, mark, pet-talent). It also distinguishes itself from hero_stats_calc by noting pet auras are not included in that tool's per-hero stats.

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?

The note that pets give a team-wide aura and are 'browsable here but not folded into hero_stats_calc's per-hero flat stats' gives a clear context for when to use this tool instead of the stat calculator. It does not name other alternatives or broader exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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