Get damage done

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar for extra value is lower. The description adds 'bounded' (capacity/payload limits) and clarifies that playerID is interpreted as the WCL sourceID, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and then give the single most important parameter clarification. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The definition is adequate for a read-only query tool, but with no output schema and 11 parameters it should at least sketch what 'evidence' looks like or how the bounds apply. The description leans heavily on the schema and annotations and leaves the return shape to inference.

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 input schema already documents most parameters with 64% coverage, and parameter names like abilityID, maxEntries, and maxPayloadBytes are reasonably self-explanatory. The description adds value by confirming that playerID is applied as sourceID, and 'bounded' hints at the output limits, but it does not systematically clarify the remaining 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get bounded damage-done evidence') and the name/title reinforce it. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_fight_damage or get_damage_taken, so it stays one step below full clarity.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not state when to prefer this over get_damage_taken, get_fight_damage, or get_fight_events, and it does not give exclusions. The only contextual hint is the playerID mapping, which is more parameter clarification than usage direction.

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