Get stage drops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: drop_rate is expected items per run (not probability), expired drops are still returned flagged data_stale, and include_efficiency adds deterministic observations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 informative but somewhat lengthy (multiple sentences). It front-loads the core purpose but then delves into detailed data structure explanations that could be streamlined. Not excessively verbose, but could be tighter.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the tool's behavior comprehensively: input parameters, output semantics (drop_rate meaning, provenance, expired flag, efficiency), and caching. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 compensate. It explains server region, the two alternative identifiers (stage_code, game_id), and include_efficiency's purpose (add deterministic farming observations). It also clarifies computed fields like drop_rate and times. This provides sufficient meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool fetches one Arknights stage's item drop rates by region and stage_code or game_id, sourced from Penguin Statistics cache. It specifies the resource (stage drops) and distinguishes from siblings like get_item_drops by focusing on stage-level data.

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 description explains the input requirements (region + stage_code or game_id) and notes that en/cn are never mixed, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_item_drops or search_stages. Usage is implied but not compared.

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