race_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns 'the complete entry with description merged in,' which is useful observable behavior beyond what the schema reveals. It also communicates exact-name matching. It does not mention not-found/error behavior, but for a simple fetch operation this is a reasonably transparent description.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return behavior is stated, and the routing guidance to race_search is placed last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 getter with three parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose, matching mode, and return behavior. It could mention error/not-found behavior, but the sibling list and schema already clarify the scope. The guidance distinguishing it from race_search completes the decision context.

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 all three parameters well. The description adds context by emphasizing exact-name lookup and the merged description, but it does not need to repeat parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds only modest meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific D&D 5e playable species or race'), and a clear selection criterion ('by exact name'). It also distinguishes itself from race_search by noting that exact names are the use case, which helps an agent choose between the two tools 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 description explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool: 'Prefer this over race_search when you have an exact name.' This directly guides tool selection and names the alternative, giving clear decision criteria rather than leaving the choice implicit.

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