get_player_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that changes are calculated 'over actual returned dates' (not just the requested days), includes 'percentage accuracy', and notes ISO timestamps. This gives the agent useful expectations about the output format and calculation semantics that annotations don't provide.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get 1–90 daily public player snapshots') and packs additional useful details (calculation over actual returned dates, percentage accuracy, ISO timestamps) without redundancy. It's efficient and every phrase earns its place. It could be slightly improved by separating the calculation detail into a second sentence for readability, but it's not bloated.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior well: what it fetches, the range, the calculation semantics, and timestamp format. However, it doesn't explain the 'context' parameter's meaning or how it filters results, which is a gap given the low schema coverage. It also doesn't mention pagination or response structure, though the absence of an output schema lowers the bar. The description is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for full understanding of all parameters.

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 33% (only the 'player' parameter has a description). The description adds some context: 'daily public player snapshots' implies the days parameter controls how many snapshots to fetch, and 'calculate changes over actual returned dates' clarifies how the days parameter relates to the output. However, it doesn't explain the 'context' enum values (general, noMods, noPause) or their effect on the data, and it doesn't add detail about the 'days' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (min/max/default). The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves the context parameter semantically 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily public player snapshots'), and specifies a range of 1–90 days. It clearly indicates the tool retrieves player history data, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_player (single snapshot) and list_player_scores (score lists). However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage context: it's for retrieving historical player snapshots over a date range, which is distinct from get_player (current snapshot) and analyze_player (analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit guidance is missing.

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