guild_brawl_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explicitly discloses single-GET behavior, no auto-pagination, local row and byte limits, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, decimal-string payout quantities, and incomplete-history caveats.

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 a clear purpose statement, but the later sentences are dense and partially redundant. 'Other tournament and date selectors remain forwarded but unverified' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' convey nearly the same caveat, and 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' adds little concrete value.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation behavior, filter reliability, limits, truncation, and refusal semantics. It does not describe the shape or fields of individual brawl records, but it provides enough operational context to call the endpoint correctly.

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 supply parameter meaning itself. It explains cycle as a single-row selector and start_cycle/end_cycle as inclusive endpoints, and it groups tournament/date filters as forwarded-but-unverified. guild_id is implied by 'explicit guild,' though date formats and per-parameter validation expectations are left vague.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read brawl records for an explicit guild.' This states the tool's action and scope unambiguously. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like guild_brawl_sps_rewards, relying on the 'records' versus 'rewards' distinction to carry that weight.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as guild_brawl_sps_rewards or tournament_find_brawl. It explains how certain selectors behave and that some inputs are unverified, but this is filter semantics rather than usage routing.

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