Get Mythic+ summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the output is a compact overview and optional tables fail independently with warnings. This partial-failure behavior is valuable and not present 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose and content in one sentence, then adds a critical failure behavior in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the main returned categories and warning about independent table failures. Combined with the annotations and schema, the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, though a bit more detail on when the optional tables fail could improve completeness.

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 the input schema already documents most parameters well. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does help the agent understand what kind of report code/URL context is relevant (Mythic+). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Mythic+ overview') and enumerates the contained fields: key, duration, dungeon, enemy forces, players, DPS/HPS, deaths, and interrupts. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_fight_summary', so it misses the top score.

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 implies the tool is for Mythic+ report summaries by naming that content type, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_fight_summary or list_dungeon_pulls. There is clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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