Monster facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include map links and that the tool 'lists its other versions', which is real behavioral context tying the `version` parameter to a multi-variant result. It does not, however, mention pagination or rate/query limits, so it goes only modestly beyond 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trigger ('Use for...') comes first and the payload list follows. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back. Minor cost: the dense comma list is less scannable than split sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload — and it does so thoroughly by enumerating stats, weaknesses, slayer info, locations and versions. Missing pieces are pagination behavior (the schema's `cursor` hints at long lists) and any note on ambiguous monster names, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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% — `monster`, `version` and `cursor` are all documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces that a monster can have multiple versions and that other versions are listed, which helps an agent understand the `version` parameter's role, but it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (a monster) and enumerates the specific facts returned — combat level, hitpoints, max hit, attack styles, weaknesses, immunities, slayer info, locations. That is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from get_drops or get_slayer_tasks at a glance, but it never states a clean verb ('retrieve/fetch') and the slayer mention slightly blurs the line with get_slayer_tasks.

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 a monster's stats' gives an implied trigger condition but no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer it should call this for monster lookups rather than get_item or get_quest, but routing decisions (e.g. use get_drops instead when you need drop tables) are left to inference.

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