get_recurring_blunder_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are ranked by recurrence across multiple events, but it does not say what the ranking key is (count, win rate, evaluation swing) or how ties are broken. That is meaningful added context, but thinner than it could be for a ranking 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope come before anything else. Its brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits the two undocumented parameters and any guidance on interpreting the ranking. For a ranking/aggregation tool with 0% schema coverage, the definition is too thin to call 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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters: neither 'limit' nor 'min_occurrences' is documented in the schema, and the description does not compensate. "Multiple recorded events" loosely gestures at min_occurrences (default 2), but nothing explains that limit caps returned rows or what units either value uses.

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 names a specific verb ("rank") and resource ("positions linked to blunders") with a scoping qualifier ("in multiple recorded events"). This implicitly separates it from get_game_blunders, which presumably works within a single game, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 reach for this tool versus get_game_blunders, get_position_context, or get_position_moves, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase "multiple recorded events" hints at cross-event aggregation but leaves the agent to infer the selection rule.

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