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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — implicit user scoping, restriction to completed practice runs, and newest-first ordering — but says nothing about pagination, empty-result behavior, or how much history is retained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned and its ordering, then closes with the two parameter constraints. The enumerated field list ('game, score, rounds, duration...') is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it reads efficiently and wastes little.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers scope, ordering, and filter behavior adequately. Minor gaps remain around whether results include chat-only sessions distinctly and what happens with no history, but none would cause a misinvocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the enum values and the 1-20 range/default all documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates 'Optional game filter; limit 1-20 (default 10)', adding no new meaning such as whether an unknown game returns empty or errors.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Returns the connected user's recent completed practice results' — and scopes it to the website plus chat, newest first. That distinguishes it from write-side siblings like save_game_result, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with read_free_material, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for pulling your own recent results, and the optional game filter hints at narrowing by game. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions (e.g. whether in-progress or non-practice sessions are excluded), and no pointer to an alternative tool such as open_hirevue_game or start_game_session.

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