horizon_torn_getTornFactionHoF

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, cache behavior, pagination details, or limits. The presence of 'limit' and 'offset' parameters is not mentioned.

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. However, it is too short and omits important details. It is not excessively verbose, but the brevity detracts from usefulness.

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 complexity of the tool (6 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the return value, how categories work, and any constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional knowledge.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'a specific category', which corresponds to the required 'cat' parameter, but does not explain what categories are valid or how to use optional parameters like limit, offset, key, etc. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the gaps.

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', the resource 'faction hall of fame positions', and the scope 'for a specific category'. It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like horizon_torn_getFactionHoF or horizon_torn_getMyFactionHoF.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other faction HoF tools), nor does it mention prerequisites, category selection, or typical use cases. The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.

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