getMissionProgress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention auth needs, return format, or any state implications, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single short sentence with no filler words, making it efficient and front-loaded. It is concise, though the minimalism sacrifices helpful context.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description should compensate by explaining what the progress represents and how it relates to sibling tools. It does neither, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent trying to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no additional parameter information is needed.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('mission challenge progress'), giving a basic sense of the operation. However, it does not specify whose progress is returned or how this differs from sibling tools like getMissions or getSeasonPassProgress.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling getter tools, the description does not clarify whether this is the right choice for accessing mission challenge progress or another tool such as getMissions.

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