Get damage taken

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some real context ("bounded" result set, WCL table semantics mapping playerID to sourceID), but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or how maxEntries/maxPayloadBytes truncate results.

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 with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence is dense WCL jargon that could be clearer.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and a nearly identical sibling, the description is far too thin: it omits the distinction from get_fight_damage_taken, filtering/scope behavior, and any notion of what the bounded result contains.

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 coverage is 64%, above the baseline threshold, and the description does add a meaningful semantic note that playerID is mapped to sourceID for the selected player perspective. However, it says nothing about abilityID, translate, maxEntries, or maxPayloadBytes, so it only partially compensates for the uncovered 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 the resource (damage taken) but wraps it in vague phrasing ("bounded damage-taken evidence") and never distinguishes it from the near-identical sibling get_fight_damage_taken or from get_fight_damage/get_damage_done. An agent cannot tell from this text which damage-taken variant to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite three closely related siblings in the toolset. The second sentence reads as a parameter caveat rather than routing guidance, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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