horizon_torn_getRaidReport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get raid war details' with no disclosure of behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It adds minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 and front-loaded. It gets to the point quickly, though it sacrifices detail. For a tool that may be self-explanatory with good schema, this is acceptable.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value, scope of 'details', or how it relates to similar tools. The context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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% as all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description states 'Get raid war details', which is a verb+noun but lacks specificity. Among many sibling tools like 'getFactionRaidsHistory' and 'getRankedWarReport', it does not differentiate what 'raid war details' uniquely provides. It is clear in a general sense but not 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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