get_dota_counters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavior: it uses empirical data from real games, normalizes hero names, and returns win rates with sample sizes. It is honest about being a read-only lookup and explains the meaning of winrate_pct.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary line, then explanation of best/worst, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully defines the return object shape and field meanings, including how to interpret winrate_pct. All parameters are covered, and the tool's context is clear.

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 0% (no descriptions in JSON Schema), but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: hero accepts name/alias/shortName, and limit defaults to 12. It adds meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get the strongest matchups (counters) for a Dota 2 hero from real games.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the distinction from sibling tools like 'lookup_hero' or 'predict_dota_winrate' is evident.

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 explains what the tool returns and advises to 'Report numbers verbatim,' implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives.

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