Quest step guide

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the lower bar applies. The description still adds behavior beyond them: results are section-scoped, sections are addressable by name or number, long content is paginated via a cursor, and output includes map links.

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 zero filler; every clause (source, section granularity, map links, cursor pagination) carries distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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 does the work of characterizing the return: ordered sections, map links, and cursor-based continuation. The only real gap is how a caller discovers valid section names or numbers before the first call.

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 parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces 'section by name or number' and cursor continuation but adds no new syntax, defaults, or edge cases beyond the schema's own text.

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 ('step-by-step quest instructions') and names the content source (Quest Helper) plus the delivered artifact (map links), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_quest, so the agent must infer which one returns the overview versus the walkthrough.

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...' implies the guiding condition and the phrase 'one section at a time by name or number' hints at the calling pattern, but there is no explicit when-not clause and no mention of get_quest, plan_quest_trips, or suggest_quests as the alternative for summaries or trip planning.

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