Get buffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations: it says results are 'bounded' and that playerID is interpreted as a WCL targetID. This is useful information about output limits and parameter mapping not present in the annotations.

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 only two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a targeted parameter caveat, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and a directly overlapping sibling tool named get_buff_uptime, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned buff-uptime evidence looks like, what 'bounded' means in practice, or how this tool differs from get_buff_uptime. An agent would likely need external knowledge to invoke it with full confidence.

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 64%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a small clarification about playerID being applied as WCL targetID, but this is largely redundant with the schema's own note that the tool maps it to the correct source/target filter. It does not meaningfully explain the undocumented parameters such as abilityID, translate, maxEntries, or maxPayloadBytes.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get bounded buff-uptime evidence on a player.' It is understandable and identifies the core function, though the word 'bounded' is somewhat vague and it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling get_buff_uptime.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use get_buffs versus get_buff_uptime or any alternative tool. The description mentions playerID handling but does not provide selection criteria, exclusion conditions, or context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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