horizon_torn_getMyFactionRankedWarsHistory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it simply states the function. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, destructive potential (likely none), or any side effects. A read operation is implied but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence is concise and to the point. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include key details.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently informative. It does not explain return values, pagination (related to limit/offset), time range usage, or any constraints. The low schema coverage and missing annotations compound the lack of completeness.

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 describes parameters with 75% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain how 'from' and 'to' are used together). For a tool with 8 parameters, more context would be helpful.

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 clearly states the action ('Get ranked wars history') and resource ('your faction'), making the purpose evident. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., 'for the faction of the authenticated user').

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 like 'horizon_torn_getFactionRankedWarsHistory' (which likely retrieves history for any faction). The description does not help the agent decide based on context.

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