horizon_torn_getTornEliminationTeam

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination (limit/offset), authentication (key), caching (timestamp), or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about important behavioral traits.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with key information, though it may be too brief to be fully effective.

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 lack of output schema and the complexity of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how the 'id' relates to the larger elimination structure. The agent would need additional context to use this tool effectively.

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 67%, meaning three params (limit, offset) lack descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, and fails to clarify the undocumented parameters. The description adds no compensating value for the uncovered params.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'players in a specific elimination team'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool horizon_torn_getTornElimination, which likely retrieves the overall elimination event rather than team-specific players.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where other tools might be more appropriate.

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