Get character death history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds 'bounded, best-effort' and 'across those reports', which usefully signal incomplete or best-effort results. It does not disclose pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover the key safety profile.

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 sentence with no redundant phrases. 'Discover recent reports' is front-loaded, and 'bounded, best-effort' packs important qualifiers compactly. It is appropriately concise, though slightly ambiguous grammar ('across those reports') costs it a perfect score.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description needs to specify required inputs and return shape; it does neither. It never mentions serverRegion, contentType, or how 'recent' is determined, so an agent must infer invocation details. Safe annotations reduce risk but do not resolve parameter and response ambiguity.

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% (just server and accessMode have descriptions), and the tool description mentions no parameters, not even the character name. The word 'bounded' vaguely hints at limit-related params but does not explain maxEntries, limitReports, maxPayloadBytes, contentType, or serverRegion. This fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 concrete result ('death evidence for one character') and a mechanism ('across recent reports'), distinguishing it from fight-scoped death tools like get_deaths. The title reinforces the intent. This is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'Discover recent reports' implies historical aggregation across reports, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over get_deaths or other character-scoped tools. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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