Get passive tree allocation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does reveal that the tool may pull from an external API or a local PoB/poe.ninja build, but it does not explain fallback behavior, freshness, or what happens when no build is available. This is useful but incomplete.

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, focused sentence that packs the core action, resource, and data-source choices without any filler. It is front-loaded with the main intent and contains only relevant details.

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 getter with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete: it names what is fetched, where the data may come from, and the schema fills in the parameter default. It could add more about output shape or error conditions, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional characterName parameter, including its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond that, 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 clearly states a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('a character's allocated passive tree node hashes and jewel data'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_defenses or get_inventory. It also adds source context (GGG API or active PoB/poe.ninja build), which further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving passive tree data and mentions possible data sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is understandable but relies on the agent to infer the right situation from the sibling list.

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