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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, requires specific authentication and player opt-in, and is subject to a quota. This provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 sentence with a clear colon-separated list of report contents, followed by a second sentence covering requirements. It is front-loaded with 'PAID' and contains no unnecessary words.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description comprehensively explains the tool's purpose, return contents, and all usage constraints (payment, subscription, opt-in, quota). No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% (the shareableId parameter is fully described with pattern and example). The description adds the example format 'NR-AB12CD' but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns a full cognitive-combine report for a single player by NeuroRank profile ID, listing specific contents (dimension scores, archetype, written report, coaching notes). This is distinct from siblings get_cohort_stats and get_team_report, which focus on aggregated or team-level data.

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 explicitly marks the tool as PAID, requires an API key with a specific subscription (scout or team), limits to players who opted in, and mentions a monthly quota. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the sibling tools' purposes are implied by their names.

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