recent_losses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but adds useful context: it sources from zKillboard and requires no login. However, it doesn't disclose aspects like data freshness, whether losses are all types or only recent ones, or potential rate limits. It is enough for a simple read-only lookup but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core function. Every phrase earns its place: the source, the fit detail, the purpose, and the no-login requirement. No fluff or repetition.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (losses with full fit detail), the source (zKillboard), authentication (none needed), and purpose (explaining why they died). It does not describe the exact output format or error conditions, but these are less critical for a straightforward list tool.

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 schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions: character_name requires an exact name, and limit is an integer from 1-10 with a default of 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the high coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns a character's recent ship losses from zKillboard, with full fit detail. It specifies the resource (losses), the source (zKillboard), and the detail level (full fit), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_fit or fit_readiness. The phrase 'raw material for explaining why they died' reinforces its specific purpose.

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 clear context: it is the raw material for explaining why a character died, and it notes that it works for any character name without login. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to other sibling tools.

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