Achievement diary

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the description is free to spend its words elsewhere — and it does, disclosing the response behavior: a tier-by-tier ✓/✗/? requirement summary, and the deeper task/reward listing that appears only when a single tier is chosen. That conditional-detail behavior is genuinely useful and not derivable from the 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?

A single dense sentence front-loaded with the usage cue, with no filler. The interleaved ✓/✗/? notation and clause stacking make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so for both modes. Minor gaps remain: no mention of pagination via cursor or of the 'player' override, but the core unknowns an agent needs are covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics for the optional 'tier' parameter — selecting one tier unlocks the per-task completion and rewards view — which the schema's bare enum label does not convey. It is silent on cursor/player, so it is not a 5.

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+resource ('achievement diary region') and describes the exact output: per-tier requirements checked with ✓/✗/? and, for a single tier, tasks with WikiSync completion plus rewards. It is distinguishable from sibling get_quest/get_combat_achievements by the diary-region scope, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 opening 'Use for an achievement diary region' gives a positive trigger, but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_combat_achievements or get_quest, and no note that omitting tier changes the response shape. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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