horizon_torn_getMyFactionRaidsHistory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, data range constraints, or that it is a read-only operation. The description merely restates the name's implication.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too short to provide necessary context. It could be slightly expanded to include usage hints or constraints without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that output schema is absent and parameters include time range and sorting, the description does not inform the agent about what constitutes 'raids history' or how to effectively use the parameters. The tool's behavior is under-specified.

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 high (86%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('raids history for your faction'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'horizon_torn_getFactionRaidsHistory', which likely retrieves raids history for a different scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it could note that this tool is scoped to the user's faction, unlike 'horizon_torn_getFactionRaidsHistory' which may require a faction ID.

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