unicum.gg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet "Battle" discloses nothing — not whether the call is read-only, what happens on an unknown id, whether the data is live or historical, or what shape the response takes. There is no annotation contradiction, but there is also no 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?

One word is technically concise but is under-specification rather than efficient communication; there is no front-loaded statement of action or scope for the agent to anchor on.

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 three parameters (one undocumented), the description should be doing substantial work — but it supplies nothing beyond the tool's subject matter. An agent cannot tell what this returns or how it differs from the replay sibling.

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 67%: id (19-digit arenaUniqueID string) and region (enum) are well documented in the schema, but language has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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 is the single noun "Battle", which merely restates the resource implied by the tool name battles_by_id. It names no verb and no retrieval behavior, so the agent must infer from the name alone that this fetches a single battle record by its id.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the obvious sibling battles_by_id_replay, nor on when a battle lookup is appropriate at all. The agent gets no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions from the description.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what a replay contains, whether it requires authentication, how large the response is, or what the return format is.

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 only two words, which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It fails to front-load any useful information about the tool's behavior or scope.

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 tool with required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. The schema covers inputs, but the description provides no context about what the replay is or how it relates to the battles_by_id endpoint.

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%: the schema clearly documents id (19-digit arenaUniqueID string) and region (enum). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Battle replay' is a two-word noun phrase that restates the tool's suffix rather than stating a verb and resource. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like battles_by_id or battles_by_id_loadouts, leaving the agent to infer the exact operation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided: no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over battles_by_id, or any alternatives. The agent receives no routing information.

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

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, and it discloses nothing: not what the overview contains, not whether it is a read-only operation, not rate limits or caching. "Clan overview" conveys no behavioral information at all.

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?

Two words with no waste, but this is extreme under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no structure to speak of and no front-loaded information beyond the resource name.

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 2-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what data the overview returns and when to prefer it over the specialized clans_by_tag_* tools. It supplies none of that.

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% and both parameters (tag, region with an eu/na/asia enum) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but nothing is missing either.

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?

"Clan overview" is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name; it names no verb and no scope beyond the word "overview". It gives no clue how it differs from the many sibling sub-resources (clans_by_tag_members, clans_by_tag_activity, clans_by_tag_stronghold, etc.), which an agent must disambiguate purely from naming convention.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of what an "overview" includes, and no pointer to the more specific clans_by_tag_* siblings for members, wars, or vehicles. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name itself.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: no indication of whether this is a read, no rate limit or auth notes, no sense of what 'activity' means (battles per period? member logins?). The only vague signal is that some activity data is returned.

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?

It is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is short through under-specification rather than efficiency. Two words for a tool with a distinct measurement scope does not earn its place.

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, a rich set of closely-named siblings, and a computed-sounding metric ('activity'), the description is nowhere near complete. An agent cannot know what is returned or when this tool is the right choice.

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%, and both parameters (tag, region with its enum) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Clan activity" is a noun phrase with no verb and no scope. It restates the name (clans + by_tag + activity) without saying what is retrieved or computed. Siblings like clans_by_tag_members or clans_by_tag_stronghold cannot be distinguished from this tool by an agent reading only the description.

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?

No when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any of the many sibling tools. Nothing routes an agent to or away from this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. "Stats" weakly implies a read-only aggregate query, but nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, result shape, or whether the data is live or historical.

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?

Three words is short but not informative; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of scope or purpose for a reader to anchor on.

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 a two-parameter required input, the description should explain what the returned stats contain and how they differ from sibling clan endpoints. It explains neither.

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%: tag and region (with an eu/na/asia enum) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Clan wars stats" is essentially a restatement of the tool name clans_by_tag_clan_wars; it names no verb and no scope. It gives no way to distinguish this from siblings like clans_by_tag_activity, clans_by_tag_stronghold, or clans_by_tag_tournaments, which are all per-tag clan sub-resources.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent must guess whether "clan wars stats" overlaps with clans_by_tag or clans_by_tag_tournaments.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only indication, no pagination, rate-limit, auth, or return-shape information. Two words cannot cover the behavioral profile of a two-parameter data lookup.

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?

This is under-specification rather than conciseness — a two-word fragment with no front-loaded verb or scope. Brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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 and no annotations, the description should carry the load, but it says nothing about what a 'clan member' record contains or how the bounded region enum affects results. It is far short of complete for a data-retrieval endpoint.

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 both 'tag' and 'region' documented (and region as an enum), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, but the schema already does the work.

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 'Clan members' is essentially a restatement of the tool name (clans_by_tag_members) with no verb and no scope. It implies the resource is a clan's member list, but it never states what is done with it (list/fetch) or distinguishes it from siblings like clans_by_tag, clans_by_tag_activity, or clans_by_tag_previous_clans.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many sibling clan endpoints. The two required parameters (tag, region) are not referenced, so the agent gets no routing help beyond the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not what "previous" means (former members? prior tags? clan history timeline?), not ordering, not whether the record is historical or current, not whether it is a read-only lookup. For a data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.

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?

Three words with no structure and no front-loaded intent beyond the name. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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 a name-only fragment, an agent has almost nothing to decide whether or how to call this versus the dozens of sibling clan tools. The description is functionally inadequate for even a simple lookup endpoint.

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% and only two parameters (tag, region with an enum), so the schema already documents both fully. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline but not above it.

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?

"Clan previous clans" is a fragment that essentially restates the tool name (clans_by_tag_previous_clans) without a verb or scope. It hints that historical/former clan data for a given tag is returned, but an agent cannot tell what a "previous clan" is or how it relates to siblings like clans_by_tag or clans_by_tag_activity. This is near-tautological naming rather than a stated purpose.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many sibling clan endpoints (clans_by_tag, clans_by_tag_history-style endpoints, clans_compare, etc.). Nothing indicates prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the returned stats include. A caller has no behavioral information at all.

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 3-word fragment. While it is short, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and it lacks any structure or front-loaded detail that would help an agent act on it.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, usage context, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent unable to confidently invoke the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (tag and region, including the enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Clan stronghold stats' essentially restates the tool name with minimal added information. It lacks a verb, scope, or detail on what 'stats' encompasses, leaving the agent to infer the exact purpose from the name alone.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus siblings like clans_by_tag, clans_by_tag_activity, or clans_stronghold_top. The description provides no usage context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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, and it supplies none. It does not say whether results are paginated, historical or current, scoped to a season, or what authorization is required. For a clan-scoped lookup with zero annotation coverage this is a complete gap.

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?

Three words is not conciseness but under-specification: the entire budget was spent restating the name, leaving no front-loaded explanation of scope or behavior. Nothing here earns its place beyond the title.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn scope, return shape, or filtering behavior, and it communicates nothing. The required tag and region are discoverable from the schema, but the agent still cannot tell how this differs from the other clans_by_tag_* endpoints.

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 both required parameters (tag, region) documented and region constrained by an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the tag format (platform prefix, casing) or region semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Clan tournaments' merely restates the resource implied by the tool name (clans_by_tag_tournaments) with no verb indicating retrieval. It does not distinguish this from siblings like clans_by_tag_clan_wars or tournaments, both of which also surface clan competition data. It is effectively a tautology of the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as clans_by_tag_clan_wars or tournaments_by_id. The only implied usage comes from the name itself, and it is not misleading, so this lands at 'no guidance' rather than the bottom.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication of read-only vs. mutation, required clan membership/auth, pagination, rate limits, or return shape.

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 text is tiny but that is under-specification, not conciseness; it is a two-word fragment with no verb and nothing front-loaded because there is essentially no content to structure.

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 a two-word description, an agent cannot tell what this tool returns or how it differs from the many other clans_by_tag_* siblings. The definition is far too thin for the family it belongs to.

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 only two required parameters (tag, region), each documented in the schema including the region enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, but the baseline for fully-covered schemas is 3.

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 "Clan vehicles" only restates the tool's own name (clans_by_tag_vehicles) as a fragment rather than stating what it actually does. It does not clarify whether it returns vehicle/tank records associated with a clan, vehicle statistics, or something else, and it distinguishes nothing from siblings like clans_by_tag_members or clans_by_tag_stronghold.

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 at all on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative sibling to pick. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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

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, and it supplies nothing. It doesn't state that this is a read-only lookup, whether results are paginated, how many videos come back, ordering, or how a missing/unknown clan tag is handled.

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?

At two words it is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy: there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope. Nothing in the sentence earns its place because it merely echoes the tool name.

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 two required parameters, the description needs to explain what is returned and what the tag/region inputs do. It explains none of this, leaving the agent with a bare label for an operation it must guess at.

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% and both parameters (tag, region enum) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify tag format (with or without the '#' prefix) or region usage.

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 'Clan videos' is effectively a restatement of the tool name (clans_by_tag_videos) with no verb and no resource relationship stated. It doesn't say it lists/retrieves videos belonging to a clan identified by its tag, which is the one thing that would separate it from generic siblings like videos, maps_by_slug_videos, and tanks_by_slug_videos.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given at all. The description never distinguishes this tool from its many siblings (clans_by_tag, clans_by_tag_members, videos, videos_mine), nor does it state any condition, prerequisite, or exclusion. The agent can only infer usage from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not what the comparison produces, not whether it is a read-only operation, not any rate or permission behaviour. Two words provide zero behavioral context.

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?

Two words are maximally front-loaded with no padding, so it is not verbose. However, this brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness; the phrase conveys almost no 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?

For a two-required-parameter comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what is compared and roughly what comes back. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict the result of invoking it.

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% – both tags (2-4 clan tags) and region (enum eu/na/asia) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Compare clans" is essentially a restatement of the tool name clans_compare, with no added scope or detail. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling og_clans_compare, nor does it say what aspect of clans is compared (stats, activity, members, etc.).

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 clans_by_tag, clans_top, or the identical-sounding og_clans_compare. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context of any kind.

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

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, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read or write, not the return shape, not whether results are scoped to a region, not caching or rate-limit behavior. Two words cannot cover a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: two words with no verb, no object of the operation, and no front-loaded purpose. Brevity here costs the agent all the information it needs.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it supplies none. The parameter itself is fully covered by the schema, but an agent cannot tell what the tool returns or why it would be chosen over its many siblings.

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% and the single region parameter is documented in the schema with an enum of eu/na/asia, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself fully specifies the only parameter.

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 "Clan languages" is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name clans_languages, with no verb and no statement of what is actually returned or computed. It gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings such as players_languages, clans_search, or clans_top.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of what the tool is for, and no reference to any alternative (e.g. players_languages for player-side language data). The region parameter is the only hint at context, and it is not explained in the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It does not state result limits, pagination, whether the search is exact or prefix-based, or what the response contains. Two words cannot cover the behavior of a search endpoint.

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?

At two words the description is certainly not bloated, but its brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no wasted sentence because there is essentially no content.

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 search tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the result shape, ordering, or result caps, and should route between this tool and clans_search_ndjson. None of that is present, leaving an agent without enough to call it confidently in ambiguous cases.

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%, and the schema itself documents 'q' as a search prefix and 'region' with an enum of eu/na/asia. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for fully documented parameters applies.

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 pairs a verb ('Search') with a resource ('clans'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling clans_search_ndjson, which appears to be the same search in streaming form, nor from clans_by_tag or clans_top. It is the minimum viable statement of purpose.

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 search versus clans_search_ndjson, when to look up a clan by tag instead, or what the two required inputs (a prefix and a region) imply about intended usage. The agent must infer everything from the schema alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. "Streamed" is a genuine behavioral disclosure about output delivery, but nothing explains what a streamed response means for the caller (incremental NDJSON lines, no pagination, how to terminate, error behavior mid-stream) or that this is a read-only operation. Sparse for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

It is only a few words with zero redundancy, and the resource name is front-loaded. But the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline — the parenthetical is doing unexplained work. Terseness that leaves the caller uninformed is not a conciseness win.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to carry return-format information, and it does not. Combined with the missing guidance on clans_search vs this streamed variant, an agent lacks what it needs to choose correctly and to consume the streamed result.

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%: "q" (search prefix) and "region" (enum eu/na/asia) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about how prefix matching behaves or whether region affects result scope. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ("Search clans") and the parenthetical "(streamed)" hints that output is streamed/NDJSON rather than a normal response. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling clans_search (nor players_search_ndjson / maps_search_ndjson / tanks_search_ndjson), so an agent must guess why both variants exist. Purpose is identifiable but not clearly scoped against alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative clans_search. The only implied routing signal is "streamed," which a caller must interpret on their own. For a tool that sits directly beside clans_search in the namespace, this is a real gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Leaderboard' weakly implies a read-only ranked list, but there is no disclosure of return shape, pagination, caching, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

At three words it is extremely short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness given the tool has four parameters and no annotations. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place by omitting needed 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?

For a tool with four enum parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It neither explains the returned ranking format nor clarifies defaults or scoping, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the parameter schema for a minimal call.

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 clear enum descriptions for region, sort, tier, and period, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3 for full coverage.

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 phrase 'Stronghold clan leaderboard' names the resource and implies a ranked-list result, and it implicitly distinguishes itself from the generic clans_top sibling by scoping to Stronghold. However, it lacks a verb and any detail about what the leaderboard ranks or returns, making it a vague purpose statement rather than a clear one.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clans_top (general leaderboard) or clans_by_tag_stronghold (per-clan Stronghold stats). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about ranking behavior, required region selection, supported periods, language handling, result limits, or return format. "Top clans" conveys only a vague ranking concept.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. Two words cannot front-load the key constraints for an eight-parameter leaderboard tool.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple nearby clan/leaderboard siblings, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly or distinguish it from alternatives.

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 only 38% across eight parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all—it does not explain the required region, the metric enum, period behavior, or limit clamping beyond what little the schema already states.

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?

"Top clans" essentially restates the tool name without specifying what kind of leaderboard this is, which metric or period drives the ranking, or how it differs from the closely related clops_stronghold_top sibling. It identifies the resource but not the operation's scope.

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 instead of siblings like clans_stronghold_top, players_top, or clans_search. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or alternate-tool routing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read/mutation semantics, no auth or rate-limit notes, no indication of what a valid region returns or whether results are cached/aggregated. The word "Coverage" conveys zero behavioral traits.

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?

One word is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose because there is no content at all. It earns its brevity only by saying nothing.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a purely nominal description, an agent has nothing to reason from. It cannot know what the return value represents, how it differs from server_stats or players_distribution, or what a 'region' selects. This is completely inadequate.

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% — the sole parameter 'region' is typed, enum-constrained (eu/na/asia) and documented as "Game server region." With the schema doing the full job and zero parameters left undocumented, the baseline of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it replaces. With servers_compare, server_stats, players_distribution and rates in the sibling list, the agent receives no routing signal at all.

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

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, and it discloses nothing. There is no indication of whether this is a read or write, what it returns, rate limits, or any other trait.

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 one word and trivially short, but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. There is nothing to front-load and no useful structure.

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 tool with two undocumented filter parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how the parameters behave.

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 0% for two parameters (category, language), and the description adds no meaning for either. The agent has no idea what values are valid or how they filter results.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 the other glossary endpoints (glossary_search, glossary_by_slug, glossary_anchors). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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

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 and delivers none of it. Nothing is said about read/write semantics, return shape, or scoping. The description adds zero information beyond the name.

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?

Two words is technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of action or result because there is effectively no content.

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 tool with an undocumented parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what 'anchors' are, what calling it returns, or how it differs from the other glossary endpoints.

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 single 'language' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. With no schema annotations and no compensating text, the agent cannot tell what the parameter controls or what values it accepts.

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 is the name restated with the underscore replaced by a space: 'Glossary anchors'. It names no verb and gives no indication of what the tool returns or does with anchors. Siblings like glossary, glossary_by_slug, and glossary_search are indistinguishable from this on the basis of the description.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the sibling glossary tools. An agent has no basis for choosing it over glossary, glossary_by_slug, or glossary_search.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing — not that this is a read-only lookup, not what happens when the slug is unknown, and not whether a default language is assumed.

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?

Two words are brief but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded purpose and no useful information to be concise about.

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-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides none of the context an agent needs — no return shape, no lookup semantics, no guidance on the undocumented language parameter.

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 50%: slug is documented in the schema (with an example) but language has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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?

"Glossary term" names the resource but supplies no verb — it does not say whether this fetches, resolves, or describes a term. It also fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings like glossary, glossary_search, and glossary_anchors.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. With several glossary-related siblings, an agent is left to guess which one to call for a slug lookup.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but supplies none. It does not state that this is a read-only search, whether results are paginated, or what the matching behavior is, beyond the schema's 'Search prefix' hint.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient concision — it omits the details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain matching semantics and the language filter. It explains neither, so an agent must guess.

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 only 50% — 'q' is documented as a prefix but 'language' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving the language filter completely unexplained.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Search the glossary'), which is enough to know it queries glossary content. However, it gives no differentiation from the adjacent siblings glossary, glossary_anchors, and glossary_by_slug, so an agent cannot tell when this search variant is preferable to those.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no mention of alternatives like glossary_by_slug (direct lookup) versus this prefix search. The agent is left to infer that this is for free-text lookup.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers almost nothing. It does not say whether this is read-only, what a positive result looks like, whether auth is required, or how failures are signaled.

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?

Two words are undeniably concise and front-loaded, but here brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing wasted, but nothing earned either.

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 no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it supplies none. An agent cannot tell what a call returns or what the health signal means.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot be improved upon by prose. Baseline 4 applies; there is simply no parameter semantics to describe.

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?

"Health check" restates the tool name rather than describing what it does in verb+resource terms. It does not distinguish this from any sibling or clarify whether it checks the API itself, upstream game data sources, or the service infrastructure.

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 call this versus any of the ~90 data-retrieval siblings. The context implies a liveness probe, but the description never states that intent, nor any alternative or exclusion condition.

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

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, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this is a read or write operation, whether it lists all maps or filters them, or what the region parameter does beyond selecting a server.

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?

One word is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded intent because there is no content at all. It fails to earn its place as a definition.

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 tool embedded among ~80 siblings, including many maps_* variants, a bare label leaves the agent unable to select it correctly. No output schema exists to compensate, and nothing about return values, pagination, or scope is conveyed.

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% and the single 'region' parameter has an enum with a description ('Game server region.'), so the schema fully documents it. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no parameter meaning.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. The sibling list contains a dozen map-related tools, and nothing here routes the agent to or away from any of them.

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

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, and it says nothing about read-only nature, return format, permission requirements, or error behavior. 'Map detail' discloses no behavioral traits whatsoever.

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?

Two words contain no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The brevity omits information the agent needs rather than trimming redundant content.

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 a two-word description, the definition is completely inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly. Nothing about the return shape or the relationship to the many sibling map tools is conveyed.

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 both the slug format ('e.g. prokhorovka') and the region enum fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Map detail' merely restates the tool name (maps_by_slug) without a specific verb or any scoping information. It gives no indication of what distinguishes it from siblings like maps_by_slug_history, maps_by_slug_ratings, or og_maps_by_slug.

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. An agent has no way to know whether maps_by_slug or og_maps_by_slug or maps_search is the correct entry point.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether it is a read-only lookup, not the shape or ordering of the history, not whether the region affects results, not pagination or rate-limit behavior. Three words provide zero behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

At three words it is not padded, but it is a fragment rather than a sentence and is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here costs the definition information an agent needs rather than saving anything meaningful.

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-parameter, two-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves an agent guessing about return content, ordering, and the relationship to the sibling history/change tools. Only the schema-documented parameters are covered.

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%: slug is documented with a concrete example ('prokhorovka') and region is an enum with a description. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 fragment 'Map changes history' does convey a resource (map) and an aspect (change history), which is more than a tautology. However it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling maps_changes, and it never states it operates on a single map identified by slug, so an agent cannot confidently separate the two.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer maps_changes (all maps) over this per-slug history, and no prerequisite or context information. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not that it is a read operation, not whether it is paginated, not permissions, not return shape. Two words cannot cover the behavior of an unannotated endpoint.

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?

It is only two words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or return content to anchor the agent.

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 and no output schema, the description should explain what the positions data contains and how it relates to slug and region. It does none of that, leaving a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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%: both required parameters (slug and region) are documented in the input schema, including an enum for region. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Map positions" restates the resource in the tool name and never says what a 'position' is (spawn points, capture points, map coordinates) or what the tool actually returns. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling map endpoints such as maps_by_slug_statistics or maps_by_slug_history.

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 about when to use this tool versus the other maps_by_slug_* siblings. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether this is a read-only lookup, what the rating scale/aggregation is, or what the response contains. The only implicit signal is that 'community' distinguishes it from the personal-ratings variant, which is minimal context against a completely empty annotation set.

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?

Three words is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — no sentence earns its place because there is effectively only a fragment. Being front-loaded is meaningless when there is nothing behind it.

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 and no annotations, the description should at least say what a 'community rating' is or what is returned per region/slug; it does neither. The tool is simple, but an agent still cannot tell this apart from the personal-ratings sibling or predict the payload shape.

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%: slug ('Map slug (e.g. prokhorovka)') and region (enum eu/na/asia, 'Game server region') are both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Map community rating' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name (maps_by_slug_ratings) without a verb or stated output. It gestures at 'community' (as opposed to personal) ratings but never says what is returned or in what form, so it borders on tautology. Sibling tools like maps_by_slug_ratings_me and maps_ratings are not distinguished.

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 maps_by_slug_ratings_me (personal) or the aggregate maps_ratings endpoint. No prerequisites, no region/slug scoping advice, no exclusions are stated. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies a personal/authenticated scope through the word "My". It does not disclose auth requirements, what happens when the user has not rated the map, or whether this is a read-only lookup.

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?

It is a single five-word fragment with zero waste, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. The key scoping fact (personal rating) is present but nothing else is.

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 tool whose name implies authenticated personal data, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits auth context, empty-result behavior, and what the rating payload contains. It is too thin for an agent to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 both region and slug documented and region enumerated, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, defaults, or clarifying detail beyond the schema.

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?

"My rating of this map" identifies the resource (a map rating) and implies user scoping via "My", which loosely separates it from maps_by_slug_ratings. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and reads as a restatement of the tool name rather than a statement of what the tool does or returns.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling maps_by_slug_ratings or maps_ratings_mine, and no hint that an authenticated user context is required for a "my"-scoped call. An agent must infer all routing and prerequisites.

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

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 disclosing behavior. The description 'Map statistics' reveals nothing about read/write nature, required permissions, rate limits, response shape, or any other behavioral trait beyond the implicit notion of statistics.

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 two words, which is concise but severely under-specified. It is not front-loaded with actionable information; it merely restates the tool name and lacks any structuring that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations) and the many sibling map tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what statistics are returned, how they relate to the mode or region, or how to choose this tool over alternatives like maps_by_slug_ratings.

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 75% (slug, region, and mode are well-documented; language is not). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, failing to compensate for the undocumented language parameter or clarify how mode affects the statistics.

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 'Map statistics' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name; it gives no specific verb or resource scope beyond the word 'statistics' and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like maps_by_slug_ratings or maps_ratings.

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, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this tool returns statistics for a map, with no context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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

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, and it discloses nothing: not whether the result is paginated, how many videos are returned, whether it is a read-only lookup, or what happens for a map with no videos. Two words cannot cover this for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two words with zero waste is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no actionable information to front-load. A definition this short provides no structure for the agent to rely on.

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 a two-word description, the definition is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or predict its result. Nothing about return shape, ordering, or limits is available anywhere.

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 slug documented as "Map slug (e.g. prokhorovka)" and region constrained to an enum with a description. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already does the documenting.

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?

"Map videos" is essentially a restatement of the tool name maps_by_slug_videos, with no verb and no statement of what is returned (a list of videos associated with the map?). It conveys a resource but not an action or outcome, so it sits at tautology level rather than a clear purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as videos, videos_mine, or tanks_by_slug_videos. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns videos tied to a specific map.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and fails. The word "feed" weakly implies a read-only, possibly paginated list of changes, but there is nothing about permissions, rate limits, change volume, or result shape. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Three words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no fully formed sentence and no useful front-loaded information. It wastes no words, but only because it says almost nothing.

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?

The tool is simple (one enum parameter, no output schema), yet an agent still cannot tell what the feed returns, how far back it goes, or whether results are paginated. The definition is too thin for even this low-complexity operation.

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% — the single region parameter is documented in the schema with its enum values. The description adds no additional meaning about how region scopes the changes feed, so this lands at the documented-schema baseline of 3.

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?

"Map changes feed" essentially restates the tool name with no verb — it never says whether it lists, streams, or retrieves changes. It gestures at a changelog resource but gives no scope, ordering, or time window, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the nearby maps_by_slug_history or tanks_changes siblings.

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 whatsoever about when to call this instead of maps, maps_by_slug_history, or maps_search. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only status, pagination, result volume, or whether it requires auth. The word 'community' faintly implies aggregated public data, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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?

It is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a four-word fragment conveys no actionable information. There is no front-loaded verb or scope to anchor the agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the shape of the response (e.g. per-map rating entries for a region), and it does not. For a tool surrounded by many near-identical ratings siblings, this leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or confidently.

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% with a single enum-constrained 'region' parameter whose description ("Game server region.") already documents it fully, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further semantics about how region scopes the result.

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?

"Map community ratings board" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name maps_ratings; it never says what action is performed (list? fetch? submit?) or whose ratings. An agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like maps_by_slug_ratings or maps_ratings_mine.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings (maps_by_slug_ratings, maps_ratings_mine, maps_by_slug_ratings_me). The single required 'region' parameter is the only hint that this is a regional aggregate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing beyond a noun phrase. It does not state authentication requirements, return format, pagination, or what a 'rating' represents, despite 'mine' implying user-specific authenticated data.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It provides no structure or content an agent can act on beyond the name.

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 tool that returns user-specific map ratings, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what ratings are, whether the response is a list or aggregate, or how many results to expect. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do much more to make the tool safely usable.

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%, so the single region parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum and description. The description adds no extra meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'My map ratings' is essentially a restatement of the tool name maps_ratings_mine. It conveys the resource (map ratings) and scope (mine) but does not state an action or distinguish itself from siblings like maps_ratings (likely all ratings) or maps_by_slug_ratings_me (likely my rating for a specific map).

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. The description gives no context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication that 'q' is a prefix match, that region is mandatory, what the result shape or ordering is, or whether pagination/limits apply. For a search tool with zero structured behavioral hints this is a complete gap.

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?

Two words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope, result expectation, or constraint to anchor the agent.

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, no annotations, two required parameters, and a two-word description, an agent cannot tell what a call returns or how the prefix search behaves. The description is far too thin for the tool's contract.

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% — 'q' is documented as "Search prefix" and region as a three-value enum — so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing on top, which makes the baseline 3 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?

"Search maps" restates the tool name maps_search almost verbatim, so it is effectively a tautology. It does convey a verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as maps, maps_search_ndjson, or the parallel tanks_search/players_search/clans_search family. An agent learns nothing about scope (e.g. prefix search) beyond the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative maps_search_ndjson or the plain maps endpoint. Nothing signals whether this is the right entry point for looking up a map by name or what to do with the results.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Streamed" is the only behavioral hint and it is left unexplained: no indication of the output format, chunking/ordering guarantees, rate limits, or auth requirements for what appears to be a streaming search endpoint.

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?

Only three words with zero padding and the core action front-loaded, but the brevity tips into under-specification for a tool with required parameters and a non-obvious streaming behavior. It reads as terse rather than efficiently concise.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only place streaming semantics, output framing, and sibling differentiation could live, and it supplies none of them. An agent would have to guess when this tool is preferable to maps_search.

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 only two parameters (q as "Search prefix" and region as an enum), so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

"Search maps" gives a specific verb+resource, and "(streamed)" hints at a distinction from the sibling maps_search. However, the parenthetical is ambiguous about what streaming actually means, so an agent cannot confidently tell the two search variants apart.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling maps_search as an alternative, and no condition that would select the NDJSON variant over the regular one. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication of whether this renders an image, returns markup, or what content-types/format the caller gets back. For a tool with zero structured behavioral coverage this is a complete gap.

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?

Three words is brevity by under-specification rather than by editing; the sentence is front-loaded but omits the information an agent needs. It is not a wasteful sentence so much as an insufficient one.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about this tool, and it says nothing about behavior or return values. An agent cannot determine what calling it produces.

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% and both parameters (title, subtitle) are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as whether these are required, default text, or escape/formatting rules, so it does not rise above baseline.

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?

"Generic OG card" restates the tool name (og) plus a category label and never states an action or resource. It does not explain that this likely renders an Open Graph image/card, nor how it differs from the many og_* siblings like og_clans_by_tag or og_maps_by_slug.

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 statement of when to use this generic card versus the entity-specific og_* variants. The word "Generic" hints at a fallback role, but the agent must infer that; no condition or alternative is named.

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

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, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this returns a rendered image/binary, HTML/Open-Graph metadata, or JSON, nor whether it is read-only or has any side effects.

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?

Three words is certainly concise and has no padding, but here brevity comes from omission rather than discipline — the single phrase conveys no operation, scope, or output. It is minimal without being informative.

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 no explanation of what an 'OG card' actually is or returns, the definition is incomplete for an agent that must decide whether to call this for a clan lookup. The required params are covered by the schema, but the tool's contract is not.

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%: both 'tag' (Clan tag.) and 'region' (enumerated to eu/na/asia) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Clan OG card' is essentially a restatement of the tool name (og_clans_by_tag → clan OG card) with no verb and no statement of what operation is performed. An agent cannot tell whether this fetches data, renders an image, or builds a shareable preview, nor how it differs from the many sibling 'clans_by_tag_*' 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions or prerequisites. Given the large sibling set (clans_by_tag, og_clans_compare, og_maps_by_slug, etc.), the agent is given nothing to route on.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only operation, whether it generates an image asset, what the response format is, or any limits. "OG card" hints at a rendered card but never confirms it.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy. There is not enough content to be front-loaded, and the one phrase present is opaque.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it supplies none. An agent cannot tell whether to expect JSON comparison data, an image URL, or a rendered asset, nor how this differs from clans_compare.

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 only two parameters, both documented in the schema (tags 2-4 clan tags; region enum). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Clans comparison OG card" largely restates the tool name (og_clans_compare) without a clear verb+resource statement. "OG card" is unexplained jargon, leaving it ambiguous whether the tool returns comparison data or renders a social-preview image.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling tools (clans_compare, clans_by_tag, og_clans_by_tag). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication of what distinguishes an 'OG' variant from the regular compare tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read, what an "OG card" contains, whether output is an image URL, markup, or JSON, nor any caching/auth behavior.

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?

Three words is not conciseness but under-specification; nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated. It is short only because it omits required 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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain the return value and behavior, and it explains neither. Only the schema's parameter docs save it from being entirely opaque.

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 both required parameters ('slug' with an example, 'region' with an enum) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about slug format or region semantics.

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?

"Map OG card" is a noun phrase with no verb; it essentially restates the name (og_maps_by_slug) and gestures at an "OG card" concept without saying what the tool does or returns. A reader cannot tell whether this fetches image metadata, generates a social preview, or renders HTML, and it is indistinguishable from siblings like og_tanks_by_slug or og_clans_by_tag.

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?

No guidance whatsoever about when to use this versus maps_by_slug, maps_by_slug_history, or the other og_* variants. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does not. It does not state whether the result is an image/card, whether it is read-only, what authentication is required, or any rate-limit/caching behavior. It provides essentially no behavioral context.

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 only two words and is not front-loaded with actionable information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than useful concision, as no sentence earns its place by helping the agent call the tool.

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, no annotations, two required parameters, and many similar player/OG siblings, the definition is far too sparse. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., an Open Graph card/image), auth needs, and routing guidance.

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% and both required parameters (region, nickname) are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun phrase, 'Player OG card,' that essentially restates the tool name og_players_by_nickname without a verb or clarifying what the tool returns. It does not distinguish this OG variant from siblings such as players_by_nickname or og_players_compare. Tautological purpose.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus players_by_nickname, players_by_nickname_* endpoints, or og_players_compare. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, whether results are cached, or what the 'OG card' output contains. The only behavioral hint is the implicit idea of a rendered card, which is too vague to act on.

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 four-word fragment rather than a concise sentence; brevity here comes from under-specification, not from efficient editing. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to structure.

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-required-parameter comparison tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what the comparison returns and how the 'OG' variant differs from its non-OG sibling. None of that 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'names' (2-4 nicknames) and 'region' (enum eu/na/asia) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no constraints such as case sensitivity, nickname format, or cross-region behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Players comparison OG card' restates the tool name (compare players) without a real verb+resource statement, and the term 'OG card' is never defined. An agent cannot tell from this what the tool actually produces or how it differs from the sibling players_compare or og_players_by_nickname.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of choosing this over players_compare, og_players_by_nickname, or og_clans_compare, and no prerequisite or context. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It does not disclose the output form (image URL vs. rendered card vs. HTML), size, caching, region-dependent behavior, or auth requirements — all unknown for a tool whose name implies an image-generation side effect.

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?

It is only two words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose, so brevity here is a deficit, not a virtue.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what an 'OG card' response looks like and how it differs from the many sibling og_* and tanks_by_slug tools. It explains nothing, leaving the agent unable to predict the return value or safely call it.

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%: slug is documented with an example ('is-7') and region is an enum with a description, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no extra meaning about either parameter, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 phrase 'Tank OG card' names a resource (tank) and an output artifact (OG card) but supplies no verb, so it never says whether the tool fetches, renders, or returns an image. It is close to a restatement of the tool name og_tanks_by_slug rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

Nothing indicates when to use this over tanks_by_slug, og_maps_by_slug, or og_tanks_compare. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or the conditions under which an OG card rather than raw tank data is wanted.

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

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 disclosure. The only hint is "OG card," implying an image response rather than JSON, but nothing is said about caching, image dimensions, auth requirements, or what happens with invalid slugs.

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 four-word fragment with no padding, so there is no bloat, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient structure — it is too terse to front-load anything useful.

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?

Two required parameters with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the rendered card, image format, or how slug ordering maps to columns. It leaves the agent guessing about both input intent and response shape.

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%, and the schema itself explains the slug suffix syntax (`is-7@ct`, `is-7~2`) and the 2-to-4 column constraint, plus the region enum. Description adds nothing, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Tanks comparison OG card" largely restates the tool name (og_tanks_compare) with only a hint that the output is an Open Graph card artifact. It never states an action verb or what the card is for, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like tanks_compare or og_tanks_by_slug.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over tanks_compare (data) or og_tanks_by_slug (single-tank card). The agent must infer that the og_ prefix plus a comparison payload means a shareable image rather than structured data.

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

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, and it discloses nothing: not read/write, not auth requirements, not rate limits, not what an 'OG card' contains. The description also fails to address mutation or side-effect behavior for a tool whose name suggests a fetch.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than tight writing. A three-word fragment is not a front-loaded, informative description, so this is not 'conciseness' in the positive sense.

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-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape, the meaning of 'OG', and the relationship to sibling tournament tools. It supplies none of that, leaving the definition effectively incomplete.

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 both id and region documented and region having an enum. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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?

"Tournament OG card" is a fragment, not a statement of purpose. It restates the name (og_tournaments_by_id) without saying what the tool returns or how it differs from tournaments_by_id. An agent cannot determine the action or output from this text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as tournaments_by_id or og_tournaments_by_id_team_by_teamId. The 'OG' prefix is never explained.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the call is a read, not response shape, not error behavior for an unknown teamId within a region. A four-word fragment is inadequate for a triple-required-parameter lookup.

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?

Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency - it is a noun fragment, not a front-loaded sentence. There is no wasted text, but there is also no useful text.

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?

A three-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain what is returned and any constraints; the description provides none of that. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (region enum, id, teamId) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about how region scopes the tournament id or team id.

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 fragment 'Tournament team OG card' restates the tool name in compressed form without stating a verb or what the returned artifact actually is. An agent cannot tell from this what an 'OG card' contains or how it differs from the sibling og_tournaments_by_id.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to og_tournaments_by_id or tournaments_by_id_team_by_teamId. The agent must infer scope entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read or write, not what the response contains, not how activity is aggregated. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has zero behavioral context beyond the name.

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 five-word phrase with no waste and a front-loaded subject, so it is not verbose. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than deliberately concise – brevity here forfeits meaning.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained grouping term, the description should define what 'band' means and what the result looks like. It leaves the central concept of the tool undefined, so an agent cannot reliably interpret results.

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% and both parameters are enums with explicit meanings ('Game server region', 'How far back an account counts as active'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given full coverage, but 'by band' leaves the aggregation dimension (the thing that might relate to window) unexplained.

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 is a near-restatement of the tool name ('players_activity' → 'Player activity by band') with no verb and no clear resource scope. 'By band' is undefined jargon – an agent cannot tell whether it means tier bands, rating bands, or regions, nor how this differs from siblings like players_distribution or players_winrate_by_tier.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a large sibling set covering player statistics. The only usage signal is the required region parameter, which comes from the schema, not the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing — not whether this is a read, whether auth is required, what happens on an unknown nickname, or what shape the response takes. Two words cannot cover a behavior profile.

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?

"Player detail" is two words with no wasted sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — nothing useful is front-loaded because nothing useful is present. It is brief only because it is empty.

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 a two-word description, an agent has almost no information beyond the parameter names. For a lookup tool sitting in a very dense sibling namespace, this is completely inadequate.

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%: both region (with an enum) and nickname are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or case-sensitivity hints beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema applies.

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?

"Player detail" names a resource but supplies no verb and no scope, effectively restating the tool name players_by_nickname. With dozens of players_* siblings (achievements, battles, clan, tanks, sessions), it gives an agent no basis to distinguish this base-detail tool from any of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the usage entirely from the tool name and schema, which the description does nothing to clarify.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not the read-only nature, not auth requirements, not response shape, not how achievements are scoped or limited. A two-word noun phrase conveys no behavioral trait beyond what the name already suggests.

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?

It is a single short phrase with zero filler and nothing to trim, but at two words it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized — the terseness is a symptom of missing content, not of efficient writing.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the definition is far too thin to guide correct invocation. Nothing about region scoping or the meaning of 'achievements' is clarified.

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 67%: region (enum) and nickname are documented in the schema, while the optional 'language' parameter has no description anywhere. The description provides no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap and adds nothing beyond the schema.

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?

"Player achievements" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name (players_by_nickname_achievements) without a retrieval verb, scope, or any differentiation from siblings like players_by_nickname_tanks or players_by_nickname_tournaments. An agent can guess it returns achievement data for a player, but the description adds nothing the name didn't already imply.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives among the many players_by_nickname_* siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether region matters for achievement data). The description gives no context at all for choosing this tool over another.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it states nothing beyond "Player battles." It omits that this is a read operation, default newest-first pagination, limit caps, and the special facets behavior documented only in the schema.

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 two-word description is technically concise but is under-specified rather than efficient. It is not front-loaded with useful scope, differentiation, or behavioral 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema and many sibling players_* and battles_* tools, the description is far too thin to support correct tool selection. The rich input schema mitigates parameter explanation, but not purpose, usage, or scope.

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 90%, so the schema already explains the ten parameters in detail, including filters, pagination, enums, and facets. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 is just "Player battles," which essentially restates the tool name and resource without a specific verb or scope. It does not clarify that it lists a given nickname's battles in a region, nor does it distinguish this from siblings such as players_by_nickname_sessions or battles_by_id.

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, no mention of the required region and nickname, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, aggregation, auth, or what fields each returned player has. Only the bare output entity is implied.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It is a noun fragment and omits essential scope, leaving nothing useful front-loaded beyond the bare concept.

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 six-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, four words cannot fully explain the returned collection or how the filters affect it. The rich schema covers parameters, but the description remains incomplete regarding return shape and intended use.

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% and every parameter has its own description, so the schema already explains region, nickname, and the optional filters. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how those filters interact or which combinations are valid.

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 is a four-word fragment that names a resource ('players') and a context ('met in battle') but supplies no verb or scope. It never states that it returns players encountered by the given nickname/region, nor how it differs from siblings such as players_by_nickname_battles.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The many sibling tools, including players_by_nickname_battles and players_by_nickname, are not mentioned, so an agent gets no routing help.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not the return shape, not whether historical clans are included (a sibling, clans_by_tag_previous_clans, suggests this distinction matters), not auth or rate-limit behavior. Three words convey zero behavioral context for a two-parameter query.

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 only three words with no padding, so there is nothing wasteful to trim. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns no credit for efficiency.

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-param player lookup with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'current clan' means (name only? tag? full clan summary?) and how it differs from clan-history siblings. That ambiguity is left entirely unresolved.

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% — region (with an enum of eu/na/asia) and nickname are both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Player current clan' is a noun fragment that essentially restates the tool name (players_by_nickname_clan) rather than stating a verb and resource. It hints at the subject matter but does not say what the tool actually does (fetch? summarize? compare?).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as clans_by_tag or players_by_nickname. An agent must infer entirely from the name which of the many player/clan siblings applies.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it discloses nothing about read vs write behavior, authentication, rate limits, or what is returned. Two required parameters (region + nickname) are implied only by the name.

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?

Three words is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded purpose or scoping information to make the brevity earn its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain what an "Onslaught record" actually is and when to fetch it. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to judge the tool's return value or correct use.

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% and the region enum is enumerated in the schema, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds nothing, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Player Onslaught record" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name (players_by_nickname_onslaught) without a verb or explanation of what the record contains. It gives no way to distinguish this from players_onslaught, players_onslaught_history, or players_by_nickname.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like players_onslaught and players_onslaught_history available, the description provides nothing to steer selection between them.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the result is paginated, time-bounded, cached, or what granularity defaults to.

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?

At three words it is concise but only because it is under-specified, not because it is efficient. There is no front-loaded purpose or structure to speak of.

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 tool with three parameters, two required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent with no information about return shape, session semantics, or time window.

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 clear enum-constrained region and granularity and a documented nickname, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing beyond it, which meets the baseline for full coverage but earns no extra credit.

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?

"Player sessions" merely restates the tool name with no verb, scope, or distinguishing detail. An agent cannot tell from this fragment whether it lists, counts, or summarizes sessions, nor how it differs from siblings like players_by_nickname_battles or players_activity.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The only faint signal is the name itself, which implies fetching sessions for a nickname, but the description provides no guidance at all.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only nature, no rate limits, no auth requirements, no pagination or return shape. This is a two-word fragment that leaves all behavioral traits unknown.

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?

It is certainly short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: two words with no actionable content, so no sentence earns its place because there is effectively only a label.

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 3-parameter, 2-required tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is only 67%, and the undocumented 'mode' parameter gets no explanation in either the schema or the description. The description adds no meaning for region, nickname, or mode beyond what the schema already states.

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?

"Player tanks" essentially restates the tool name and gives no verb or outcome: it doesn't say whether it lists tanks owned, played, or mastered by the player. It also fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling players_by_nickname_tanks_by_slug.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus players_by_nickname_tanks_by_slug, players_by_nickname_battles, or tanks_by_slug. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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. 'Player vehicle record' says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication or region constraints apply, or what the return format looks like—all critical for a data-retrieval tool.

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?

At three words, this is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It lacks the front-loaded action and scoping information needed for an agent to act confidently, similar to a bare 'Process' description.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what data is returned, how it differs from sibling endpoints, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent without enough information to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, with good descriptions for slug, region, and nickname, but the optional 'language' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no semantic detail about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Player vehicle record' is a noun phrase with no verb indicating retrieval or action. It names the entity but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like players_by_nickname_tanks or players_by_nickname_tanks_by_slug_loadout, making it essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read, what it returns, whether the player must exist, or how loadout data is scoped. For a three-required-parameter lookup with zero annotation coverage this is a severe gap.

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?

Two words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does or returns. Brevity here costs the agent information rather than saving it effort.

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 three required parameters combining player, region, and tank identity, the description is far too thin to tell an agent what a successful call yields. The schema covers the inputs, but the purpose of the composite lookup remains unexplained.

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 region, nickname, and slug all documented and region enumerated, so the schema does the work and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not mislead.

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?

"Player vehicle loadout" is a noun fragment that essentially restates the tool path rather than stating a verb and resource. It hints at retrieving loadout data for a player's tank, but does not distinguish it from the many players_by_nickname_* siblings such as players_by_nickname_tanks.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent why it would pick this over players_by_nickname_tanks or players_by_nickname_tanks_by_slug, both of which sound nearly identical.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. There is no mention of read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or result shape for what is clearly a lookup endpoint.

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?

Two words are technically short but represent under-specification rather than conciseness; there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load. It fails to earn its place as a definition.

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 a two-word description, an agent has almost nothing to reason about for a two-parameter lookup tool. The definition is inadequate for correct selection and invocation.

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% with two well-described parameters, including an enum for region, so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 phrase 'Player tournaments' names a resource but supplies no verb and no scope, so it largely restates the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as clans_by_tag_tournaments or tournaments_by_id.

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, what it returns, or which sibling to prefer for tournament data. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only nature, no rate limits, no cost, and no explanation of what the comparison produces or how it is scoped. This is a near-zero behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two words is not conciseness but under-specification; nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to load. Brevity here fails to earn its place by omitting essential 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, two required parameters, and a large ambiguous sibling set, the definition is far too thin to call the tool correctly. It leaves the agent guessing about comparison scope, result shape, and permissions.

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 only 2 well-documented parameters (names with a 2-4 constraint, region with an enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 'Compare players' is essentially the tool name (players_compare) reworded, so it functions as a tautology rather than an explanation. It does not say what attributes are compared, what the comparison returns, or why it differs from siblings like players_by_nickname or players_top.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Among ~80 sibling tools, the agent gets no routing signal at all.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only aggregate, whether results are counts or ratios, or how the region filter affects output. Two words cannot cover a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — two words that carry no actionable information. There is nothing to front-load because nothing was said.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what "distribution" returns, and it is silent. The schema is complete for input, but the tool's output shape and purpose remain undefined.

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% and the single region parameter has an enum with a clear description ("Game server region."), so the schema does the work. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which lands at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

"Player distribution" merely restates the tool name with no verb and no object of the distribution. An agent cannot tell what is being distributed (players by region? by tier? battle counts?) or how this differs from siblings like players_top or players_winrate_by_tier.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite dozens of players_* siblings. The only hint of scope comes from the required region enum in the schema, not the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about read/write behavior, permissions, return format, or whether the data is aggregate or per-player, leaving the agent with no behavioral context.

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?

It is only two words, which is concise in length but under-specified rather than usefully concise. There is no front-loaded actionable context because there is almost no content at all.

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 three parameters, one required region, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what 'player languages' returns or how to use the required filters 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?

The schema documents period and region with enum descriptions, but min_tier has no description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the 67% schema coverage gap remains uncompensated.

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 is essentially the tool name humanized: 'Player languages.' It does not state a verb, scope, or return type, so an agent cannot tell exactly what it does or how it differs from siblings such as clans_languages.

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, when not to use it, or which sibling it replaces. The presence of clans_languages makes this omission especially costly because the agent has no way to choose between them from the description.

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