get_hero_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description is accurate about it being a read operation (focused statistics), but it doesn't mention potential limitations like the absence of certain brackets, whether averages are aggregated per bracket, or whether hero names are localized even if language is set. It's a safe read tool, but extra detail on the shape of the output would have deepened 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 compact: a single informative sentence and a clear directive, placing the key stats and scope up front. There's no filler or redundancy; every phrase adds 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-information burden. It successfully indicates the primary data (pick/ban counts, win rates) and the dimensions (pro play, brackets, turbo) and that hero names are resolved. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It could add a little more about the list format (e.g., one entry per hero), but it is largely 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?

The sole parameter, language, has a 100% descriptive schema that covers its purpose, accepted formats, defaults, and the option to list all supported languages. The tool description doesn’t mention the parameter at all, but the schema already handles the semantic burden, so a baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool provides 'full hero statistics' including pick/ban counts and win rates, scoped across pro play, public skill brackets, and turbo, with hero names resolved. That is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like get_hero_rankings or get_hero_matchups, so it doesn't fully distinguish them.

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 ends with 'Use for meta/tier questions,' which gives a clear typical context. But it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools for more specialized queries. This is a single use case, no exclusions, so it's adequate but not prescriptive.

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