opendota: Get hero stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are per-bracket and include pick/win counts. This goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes: 'hero stats', 'current meta', and the specific data fields. No wasted language.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned (pick counts and win counts per bracket). The annotations provide safety context. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters. Per guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information and focuses on the output semantics, which 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), clearly identifies the resource ('hero stats'), and elaborates on what's included ('per-bracket pick and win counts for every hero'). It also adds the 'current meta' context. Among sibling tools, it differentiates from opendota_get_heroes (which likely lists heroes) and opendota_get_player_heroes (per-player stats).

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 states what this tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like opendota_get_heroes or opendota_get_player_heroes. However, the implied usage is clear: to get overall hero performance metrics. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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