horizon_torn_getTornElimination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, any side effects, caching behavior, or rate limits. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the 'standings' entail (e.g., team names, points, eliminations). It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete context. However, the tool is simple (GET-style retrieval) and the description is minimally adequate.

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% (key, comment, timestamp are described generically). However, the description adds no domain-specific meaning to these parameters, e.g., that the key might be optional or required for access. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.

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 the tool 'Get current standings for all elimination teams', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('standings for all elimination teams'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'horizon_torn_getTornEliminationTeam' which would target a single team.

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 all teams' standings, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for a single team use horizon_torn_getTornEliminationTeam). There is no guidance on context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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