get_rolling_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool shows probability for each cost tier, which is transparent, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, output format, or potential side effects. The description is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool but lacks additional context.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It covers the essential information, though it could optionally describe the output format (e.g., table or object) for completeness. Still, it is adequate for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already includes the information about omitting it for the full table. The tool description repeats this info without adding new semantics beyond the schema, so it does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 gets TFT champion shop rolling odds by player level, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'TFT champion shop rolling odds'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_champion or search_champions by focusing on rolling odds probabilities for cost tiers.

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 when to omit the level parameter ('Omit the level to see the full table'), providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like search_champions, which could help in decision-making.

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