horizon_torn_getMyFactionRevives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'detailed revives' and offers no information about auth requirements, pagination, data format, rate limits, or what 'detailed' entails beyond the schema. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate invocation effects.

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 with no fluff, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is slightly under-informative given the tool's complexity, but still earns a high score for brevity.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, how to use optional parameters effectively, or what 'detailed' means in terms of fields. The agent lacks key context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 89%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the purpose. It does not explain how parameters like 'filters', 'sort', or 'striptags' affect the output beyond their schema descriptions.

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 'Get your faction's detailed revives' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('your faction's detailed revives'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'horizon_torn_getMyFactionRevivesSimplified' by specifying 'detailed', making the purpose clear and distinct.

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 implies usage for retrieving the user's own faction's revives, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the simplified version or other faction tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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