conflict_seasons

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

With no annotations, the full burden falls on the description. It discloses several key behaviors: response shape depends on selector, wire values are preserved including nullable prize settings, it makes one logical GET with no auto-pagination, array responses are limited to 100 rows/256 KiB with truncation reported, and oversized records are refused. This is exceptional disclosure and goes far beyond a generic read.

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 dense and covers multiple caveats in a compact form. It front-loads the core read statement and then adds necessary behavioral constraints. While it is longer than average, every sentence adds value; minor redundancy like 'tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to explain return behavior. It explains the response-shape dependency on id, preservation of wire values, and output limits/reporting. It does not enumerate the actual fields of a conflict season, but for selecting and invoking the endpoint the description provides enough operational context.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains id's role as a selector, but 'lore' is not explicitly described, only grouped into 'Other declared filters' with a warning that effectiveness is not guaranteed. Partial compensation, but the meaning of lore remains under-specified.

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 opens with 'Read conflict seasons,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from the many conflict_* siblings (e.g., conflict_status, conflict_leaderboard). The resource scope is explicit.

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?

Provides concrete selector guidance: without id you get 24 records, with an explicit id you get one object, so agents know how to choose id usage. It also cautions that declared filters may not actually constrain results and that continuation pages are not auto-fetched. No alternative tool is named, but the advice is clear enough for this endpoint's own usage.

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