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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'bounded' qualifier and the three scope modes, which are useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or whether results are aggregated, so it adds only minor extra transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb first and the scope options succinctly. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a read operation.

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 has 4 parameters (all optional) and an output schema, the description does not fully prepare an agent to call it correctly. It fails to explain parameter semantics, the meaning of 'bounded', or how to specify each scope (e.g., when to set kind vs game). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but input semantics remain under-explained.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description only hints at scopes without mapping to parameters (game, kind, range, maxPoints). It doesn't explain what 'game', 'kind', 'range', or 'maxPoints' do, nor how the three scopes correspond to parameter combinations. This is a significant gap for a 4-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('player history') with three explicit scopes (all public games, all dedicated servers, or one game). It is distinct enough from sibling tools (which target packages, servers, and snapshots) to avoid immediate confusion, though it doesn't explicitly call out any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for historical activity but never states conditions like 'use this when you need player history' or 'do not use this for live data.' Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, an agent cannot easily determine if this is the right tool.

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