get_raw_combat_events

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It explains the raw nature and detail levels, but does not disclose default behaviors for null time windows (e.g., whether it covers the full match), ordering, pagination, or potential limits beyond max_events.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a usage tip, and a parameter list. The only minor redundancy is that detail_level is explained both in the opening paragraph and in the list, but overall it is concise and each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, and all parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are not needed. However, it does not explain the behavior when start_time or end_time are null (e.g., do they default to the full match?), which is a notable gap for time-window tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including start_time/end_time in seconds, hero/ability filters, the detail_level enum, and max_events. This is significantly more informative than the bare 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 clearly states 'Get raw combat events for a specific time window' with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes itself by specifying 'Use for analyzing non-fight moments (e.g., Roshan attempts, specific plays)', which sets it apart from fight-focused sibling tools.

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 provides a usage context ('non-fight moments') and explains the detail_level options, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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