Get fight summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context by noting the output is 'compact' and includes summary metrics and metadata, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like output shape or localization 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

The description conveys the tool's purpose and core output content, but it omits usage guidance and the meaning of the undocumented 'translate' parameter. With no output schema to compensate, an agent has only a partial picture for correct invocation in edge cases.

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 80%, so most parameters are documented. The description does not clarify the undocumented 'translate' parameter or add parameter-specific detail; it mostly describes the output content rather than how parameters behave.

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 clearly identifies the verb and resource: 'Get a compact raid or Mythic+ fight summary' with specific metrics like damage, healing, deaths, interrupts, and metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling single-metric tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the tool is for when a compact multi-metric summary is wanted rather than a specialized metric tool. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_report, get_mythic_plus_summary, or individual fight metric tools.

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