opendota_player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the exact return fields, the rank_tier encoding (tens=medal, units=star), and that MMR is 'estimated.' It also explicitly states 'Auth: none needed,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence summary, a Returns block, an example, and an auth note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every section serves a specific informational role without unnecessary verbosity.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return fields, rank_tier encoding, and providing an example. It covers auth requirements and the nature of the data (estimated MMR), making it complete for a simple read-only profile lookup 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?

The input schema already fully describes account_id with a precise explanation (Steam 32-bit, not 64-bit, required, part of URL path). The description's example ('account_id': 88367253) reinforces usage but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'A player's profile with rank tier and estimated MMR,' identifying the specific resource and data. It distinguishes itself from siblings like opendota_player_matches and opendota_player_winloss by focusing on profile/rank information, and it includes a detailed return structure with an example.

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 clear context: use this tool to fetch a player's profile with rank tier and MMR, with an example and a note that auth is not needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous for this simple read-only tool.

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