List report fights

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the selectedFightID statement, which conveys response behavior, but it is cryptic and does not explain the shape of the returned fight list or the significance of a missing selector.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is compact but slightly obscures meaning by using selectedFightID without defining it in the schema.

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 read-only list operation with strong annotations and good schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. Missing pieces include what raid and Mythic+ metadata the response contains and how the fight selector interacts with the fightID parameter; with no output schema, a bit more return-shape context would make it complete.

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 high (80%), so the schema carries most parameter semantics; the description need not repeat them. However, the description adds no parameter-level clarification and introduces selectedFightID without tying it to any schema property, leaving a small semantic gap.

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 clear resource ('fights with raid and Mythic+ metadata'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with get_fight_summary and related get_fight_* tools, so differentiation is left to the name and context.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose list_fights over the many fight-related siblings such as get_fight_summary or get_fight_damage. The 'if a fight selector is present' clause touches output semantics rather than use cases, so an agent has to infer selection criteria.

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