guild_brawl_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job: it discloses pagination behavior ('Does not auto-fetch continuation pages'), local limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, decimal-string payouts, and non-guaranteed filters. This goes well beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains substantive caveats, but it is dense and contains redundancy ('Other tournament and date selectors remain forwarded but unverified' vs. 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied'). There are also grammar/punctuation issues, such as 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages.'

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers limits, pagination, truncation, data formatting, and filter reliability. It stops short of describing the full response shape or error behavior, but the core operational context an agent needs is present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for cycle ('selected one row'), start_cycle, and end_cycle ('inclusive endpoint cycles'), and groups tournament/date selectors as forwarded but unverified. However, guild_id is only implied, and the remaining selectors are not individually explained, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 opening sentence 'Read brawl records for an explicit guild' provides a clear verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling guild_brawl_sps_rewards, but 'brawl records' versus 'SPS rewards' is reasonably distinct.

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 for a known guild and warns that tournament/date selectors are 'forwarded but unverified,' which is useful context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of related guild or brawl tools, nor does it mention alternatives.

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