get_character_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no polling/retry behavior for a training job, no auth or rate-limit context. The only behavioral signal is the implied non-mutating 'Check', which is weak.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description is minimally sufficient. The missing piece is any identification of the character_id parameter or when polling is appropriate, which leaves the definition adequate but incomplete.

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?

The single required character_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its format, where to obtain it, or whether it is a Soul character ID versus some other identifier. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (Check) and resource (a Soul character's training status), narrowing the generic tool name get_character_tool to a status lookup. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_status_tool or list_characters_tool.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_status_tool, list_characters_tool, or create_character_tool. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of when a character is in a state worth polling.

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