hero_level_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses key behavior: results come from fixed tables, are exact/authoritative, not formula-computed, and are scoped to Lv1-80 and specific evolutions. It does not describe return formatting or error behavior, but the core lookup behavior is transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads the exact lookup behavior and source, and the second adds valid values and the routing alternative. No filler words; every clause conveys necessary 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?

For a simple 3-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the returned stats, valid input range, evolution options, and the alternative for out-of-scope requests. It could specify the exact hero identifier format, but this is a minor gap given the surrounding toolset like list_heroes.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents the evo enum values and the level range (Lv1-80), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. The hero parameter is left to be inferred from the tool name, but the other parameters gain useful constraint information.

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 explicitly states the tool returns EXACT per-level HP/Attack/MOV/Might values from a specific source (casclash's tables), covering Lv1-80 per evolution. It distinguishes itself from hero_stats_calc by noting the table-based, authoritative, formula-free nature.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use conditions: use this tool for exact table values at levels 1-80 and for the listed evolutions, and explicitly directs to hero_stats_calc for level >80 or higher stars. Valid evo values are enumerated, leaving no ambiguity about acceptable inputs.

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