Get recent character reports

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that user-authorized access can include private reports, which goes beyond what the schema or annotations state.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and adds only one additional meaningful sentence about access behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 covers the high-level purpose and return scope, and the annotations cover safety, but it is not fully complete for invocation. With seven parameters, zero required fields, and no output schema, the agent is left to infer how character identification works and whether active-character context can substitute for name/server/serverRegion.

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 29%, and the description does little to compensate. It mentions 'a character' and 'user access', which loosely map to name and accessMode, but it does not clarify semantics for server, serverRegion, contentType, page, or limit, nor does it explain how parameters interact.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('recent reports for a character'), and adds the scope of what is included ('report visibility and bounded fight metadata'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_fights or get_character_summary, which operate on different resources or perspectives.

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 when to use the tool: to get a character's recent reports, including private ones if authorized. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_report or list_fights, leaving some routing decision to the agent's inference.

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