Get banners

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe behavior. The description goes further by disclosing limitations (absence of typed operators for standard banners, no pull-probability/pity/spark, and the fact that missing data is reported as a limitation, never fabricated). This fully meets behavioral transparency.

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 thorough but slightly verbose; it contains multiple compound sentences. It is well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then detailing inclusions, exclusions, limitations, parameters, and pagination. Nearly every sentence adds value, though some could be condensed.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure (fields included and excluded, image_refs condition). It also covers parameter behavior, sorting, and limitations. All necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively is present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It defines server as en/cn, since/until as ISO open-time bounds (inclusive), query as case-insensitive substring match on display name, and page/page_size for pagination. All five parameters are thoroughly described.

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 clearly states it lists Arknights banner archive metadata by region, enumerates the specific fields included (pool id, name, schedule, rule type, featured operators) and explicitly excludes unrelated data (gacha summary, html, images), which distinguishes it from any sibling tools.

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 explains that results are newest-first and paged, and that standard banners lack typed featured operators. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the detailed scope makes usage context clear.

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