get_performance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that numbers are absolute (not rank-relative), that the agent filter triggers extra history fetching, and that season overrides count and pulls up to 100 matches. It omits cost/latency expectations and any auth or rate-limit notes, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the section list is scannable. The enumeration is long but each bullet names a distinct return payload an agent would otherwise have to guess at, so it earns most of its length.

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 an 8-parameter, multi-section analytics tool, the description covers what each section returns, how filters interact, and how to interpret the output via get_benchmarks. An output schema exists, so return-value detail beyond the section map is unnecessary, and nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by mapping the bullet list directly onto the `sections` enum values and by explaining non-obvious interactions the schema doesn't (agent fetches extra history; season ignores count). It adds no detail on map/mode/region semantics, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Broad analysis of a player's recent matches') and explicitly positions itself as the entry point ('Start here for "how am I doing"'). The section enumeration makes the scope concrete and distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_rr_history or get_match_history.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('Start here') and routes the agent to a specific alternative for a specific need: 'use get_benchmarks to judge them against same-rank players.' No explicit when-not guidance versus get_teamplay_report or get_site_report, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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