Get character encounter rankings

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that private parses require user authorization and includePrivateLogs=true. This is useful and not already encoded in the 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 sentences carry the core purpose and the key edge case. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without repetition or fluff.

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 9 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain which parameters are needed together, how encounterID and zoneID interact beyond 'exactly one', or what the response looks like. The auth caveat is helpful but incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 22% across 9 parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It only adds clarity for the encounter-or-zone constraint and the includePrivateLogs/auth relationship; most parameters such as metric, difficulty, serverRegion, and accessMode remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get WCL rankings for one character and exactly one encounter or zone. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on fights, deaths, casts, or healing.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when rankings for a single character tied to a single encounter or zone are needed. It also notes the private-parse auth requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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