Get fight damage

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that this is a compatibility alias and that results are somehow bounded by source, but the vague phrase does not specify what source boundary applies or how behavior differs from get_damage_done. There is no contradiction with annotations, yet the added behavioral insight is thin.

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 tightly worded sentence with no fluff, front-loading the 'compatibility alias' identity before the qualifier. It is concise and structurally efficient, though it sacrifices clarity with the undefined term 'bounded source semantics.'

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 a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never states what response shape to expect, whether this is deprecated, or what source boundary is applied, and it does not explain how the alias maps to get_damage_done's semantics. An agent cannot confidently decide between this and get_damage_done from the description alone.

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 only partial (64%), yet the description contributes no parameter-level details. It does not explain how fightID, startTime/endTime, or maxEntries should be used, nor what 'bounded source semantics' means in terms of parameters. The agent must rely on schema names and enums and guess how the qualifier affects them.

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 resource ('damage done') and identifies the tool as a compatibility alias for get_damage_done, so the basic query target is inferable. However, the central qualifier 'bounded source semantics' is never defined, and the description relies on the reader knowing get_damage_done's contract rather than stating directly what the tool does. The title 'Get fight damage' helps, but the description alone is only moderately clear.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not say whether callers needing all damage done should use get_damage_done instead, nor what 'bounded source' means as a selection criterion. The reference to another tool implies comparison, but the decision rule is left entirely to inference.

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