Get gear-derived defenses

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it aggregates gear-derived defenses rather than raw character values, and by naming the possible data sources. It does not contradict annotations, though it could mention source precedence or failure behavior.

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 single sentence that front-loads the action and the stat list, then appends the data source qualifier. Every part is informative with no redundant or filler wording.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what is computed, from which gear, and via which sources. It is reasonably complete, though a brief note about behavior when no character or build is active would make it fully robust.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes characterName as defaulting to the current active character. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and clearly identifies the resource (defensive stats from a character's equipped gear) and the data source (GGG API, PoB, poe.ninja). It also enumerates the exact stats returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_offense_stats or get_passive_tree.

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 gives useful context about where data comes from ('via GGG API, or via active PoB / poe.ninja build') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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