Combat achievements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data source (WikiSync) and the return content (points per task, done/not done), but omits any auth/account prerequisite even though results depend on a saved or named player.

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 short sentences with no filler; the usage cue is front-loaded and the return-value summary follows. Efficient, though slightly terse on grammar ('done or not done').

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 read-only, idempotent, fully-schematized tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape well. It falls short only on the account/player prerequisite and paging behavior via cursor.

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 100%, so tier, cursor, player, and monster are already fully documented with patterns and an enum. The description only gestures at 'monster or tier' and adds nothing about the cursor-based paging or the player override. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('combat achievement tasks') and adds scope ('for a monster or tier'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_diary, get_slayer_tasks, and get_quest. It also previews the payload, but does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

'Use for combat achievement tasks for a monster or tier' gives an implied usage context and the two selectable dimensions, but names no alternative tool and gives no when-not-to-use condition. Adequate but leaves the routing decision partly to inference.

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