getPlayerProfile

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. It describes what data is returned but doesn't mention performance aspects (e.g., rate limits, latency), authentication needs, or potential errors (e.g., invalid identifier). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and parameter. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter info).

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 complexity (retrieving detailed player stats), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists data points but doesn't explain the return format, potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, missing fields), or error handling. For a tool with rich data output and no structured support, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Player ID or username'. The description adds value by specifying 'player ID or battletag', which clarifies the format slightly, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'comprehensive player stats' and lists specific data points (rank, main heroes, win rates, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPlayerMatchHistory' or 'searchPlayer', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'player ID or battletag' but doesn't clarify if this is for detailed profiles versus match history (getPlayerMatchHistory) or searching players (searchPlayer). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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