Get character cast history

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it will automatically discover recent reports, and results are 'bounded' and 'best-effort,' implying partial or size-limited data. It does not detail failure modes or authorization edge cases, but the annotations already cover the safety profile adequately.

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 a single, appropriately front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and key behavior without wasted words. The phrase 'bounded, best-effort' is slightly jargon-heavy but does not add length or obscure the main purpose.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, so the description must carry more weight. It explains the high-level purpose but not the report selection mechanism, output shape, required identifiers, or how the optional parameters affect results. The definition is not complete enough for reliable autonomous invocation in ambiguous cases.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only vaguely hints at parameters: 'one character' suggests name, 'bounded' suggests maxEntries/maxPayloadBytes, and 'across recent reports' suggests limitReports. It does not clarify serverRegion, accessMode, contentType, or how the parameters interact, leaving an agent under-informed for a tool with 8 mostly undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific verb/action (discover and return) and a specific resource (bounded, best-effort cast evidence for one character across recent reports). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_casts, which are more about casts within a specific report or fight context.

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 clearly suggests a use case: when you want cast history for a single character pulled from multiple recent reports, without needing to specify a particular report or fight. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_casts, so it falls short of full guidance.

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