Character lookup

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior by explaining that the lookup maps identifiers to an arena id and that the limit parameter controls how many candidates are returned.

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 short and front-loaded with the core mapping behavior. The Args section is tightly scoped to the two parameters and includes examples that earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure, and the annotations already cover safety traits. The remaining gap is that it does not explain how ambiguous matches are handled or when another character-related sibling should be preferred.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define both parameters: query accepts character names, nicknames, uids, or ids with concrete examples, and limit returns between 1 and 10 candidates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: mapping a character name, nickname, uid, or id to an arena id. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as character_match or character_correct.

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 examples of accepted query values imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus character_match, character_correct, or arena_lookup. Usage is inferable but not directly stated.

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