What quest next

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: results follow the wiki's ordered progression and deliberately include blocked-quest entries with a single unmet requirement, which the agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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, no filler, with the trigger condition front-loaded before the behavioral detail. Every clause carries information.

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 suggestion tool with no output schema and a fully documented 7-parameter schema, the description covers trigger, ordering, and inclusion logic adequately. It is slightly thin on how cursor-based continuation and the 'after' vs WikiSync distinction interact, but nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The mention of filtering by 'XP reward skill or unlock text' largely restates the rewardsSkill and unlocks parameters rather than adding syntax or semantics, so no upgrade is warranted.

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?

Names a specific verb (suggests) and resource (quests), and pins down scope: the wiki's optimal order, quests startable now plus those blocked by a single requirement. This clearly separates it from sibling get_quest (retrieval) and get_quest_guide, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 clause 'Use when the player asks what quest to do next' is an explicit trigger condition, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. It stops short of naming a sibling as an alternative or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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