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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about the inclusive range and the per-level/cumulative nature of the returned values, though it does not describe output shape, error behavior, or validation beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the key information with no filler; every word adds meaning.

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 simple read-only lookup with three parameters and a self-explanatory enum, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It explains the returned value semantics, but a small gap remains around the chronicle parameter and expected output format.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that the range is inclusive, which helps for fromLevel/toLevel, but it never mentions the chronicle parameter or its enum options, leaving a material 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 the specific action ('Get'), the resource ('per-level and cumulative experience values'), and the scope ('inclusive level range'). This clearly differentiates the tool from its NPC- and soul-crystal-focused siblings.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives; usage must be inferred from the tool's subject matter. Although the siblings are unrelated, the description itself does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred.

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