Quest requirements and readiness

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned readiness data, including the ✓/✗/? prerequisite markers. It does not describe pagination behavior (cursor is only documented in the schema) or output ordering, but that is a minor gap against strong annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return contents. The long enumeration of fields is dense but every item earns its place by describing output with no output schema present. No filler or repetition.

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 describing returns and does so thoroughly, and annotations cover safety. For a three-parameter read tool the definition is close to complete; the one meaningful omission is differentiating it from the sibling quest tools (get_quest_guide, suggest_quests, plan_quest_trips).

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 the schema already documents name, cursor and player, including the player pattern. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics (e.g., that cursor continues a long prerequisite list), so the 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?

States a specific resource (quest) and enumerates the substantive content it returns: prerequisite tree with ✓/✗/? marks, skill requirements, items, enemies, start point, difficulty, length, rewards and ironman notes. That is far more than a tautology. However, with near-namesake siblings like get_quest_guide, suggest_quests and plan_quest_trips present, it never draws the boundary between them.

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 when the player asks about a quest or whether they can do it" gives a clear triggering context, and the readiness framing hints it is the requirements-check tool rather than a guide or suggestion tool. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so an agent comparing it to get_quest_guide must still infer the split.

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