Recent kills and losses

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing that loss killmails (or any with include_fit) trigger EFT fit reconstruction with dropped/destroyed items, which is a non-obvious side effect. It omits pagination/recency-window behavior and any ESI rate-limit caveats.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler, leading with the primary return payload and following with the conditional fit behavior. Nothing to cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing returned fields and the EFT payload shape. What remains thin is the filter/limit semantics, but for a read-only list tool the description is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema's own include_fit wording ('losses always include it') rather than clarifying the filter enum semantics or what 'recent' means for limit.

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?

States a specific resource (recent killmails) and enumerates the returned fields (victim/attacker names, ships, system/security, zKillboard links), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. There is no sibling killmail tool to differentiate from, but the two-sentence scope is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical 'For losses (or any kill with include_fit)' hints at how to obtain fits, and the schema's filter enum implies kill/loss selection. It never says when to prefer this tool or what happens if no character is supplied beyond the schema's default note.

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