Get fight damage taken

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing concrete beyond the vague phrase "bounded WCL player/source semantics" – it does not explain what is bounded, how results are truncated, or what the return payload looks like, despite maxEntries/maxPayloadBytes parameters implying truncation behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of the essential facts an agent needs.

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, the description is far too thin: it omits return-shape expectations, pagination/truncation behavior implied by maxEntries and maxPayloadBytes, and the alias relationship to get_damage_taken. Nothing beyond the name and annotations guides a correct invocation.

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 64% across 11 parameters, so the description should compensate for the undocumented ones (e.g. abilityID, translate, maxPayloadBytes have no schema description). Instead it contributes a single unexplained phrase about "player/source semantics," adding essentially no meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 only says it is a "Compatibility alias for get_damage_taken," which defines the tool by reference to a sibling rather than stating what it does (return damage taken by players/sources in a fight). "Bounded WCL player/source semantics" is jargon that does not resolve the ambiguity about whether this differs from get_damage_taken or merely duplicates it.

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?

Calling it a "compatibility alias" hints that it exists for backward compatibility, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over the co-existing get_damage_taken sibling, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to guess which of the two near-identical tools to invoke.

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