Get deaths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some domain context ("bounded", and that WCL table semantics require playerID as sourceID), which is real behavioral insight beyond the annotations, but return shape and pagination/truncation behavior are unaddressed.

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 padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The WCL jargon is dense but compact rather than wasteful.

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 64% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains what a death record contains, how results are limited or ordered, or the role of abilityID/time bounds, leaving key gaps unfilled.

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%, so the schema documents most parameters itself (including that playerID maps to the correct source/target filter). The description reinforces that playerID is used as sourceID for the chosen perspective, but adds no syntax or meaning for the undocumented parameters such as abilityID.

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 gives a verb ("Get") and a loosely-named resource ("bounded death evidence"), but "death evidence" is vague and does not clearly say it returns death events for a report/fight. It does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling get_character_deaths.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling event tools (get_character_deaths, get_fight_events, get_events). The one contextual note is about which actor field to supply, not when the tool is the right choice.

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