player_archived_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: one GET request, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, a 100-row/256 KiB array limit with truncation reported, and rejection of oversized records without partial fields. It also warns that filters are forwarded but not guaranteed effective by the upstream API.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then parameter guidance, then behavioral limits and truncation behavior. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information, and there is little filler.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description addresses the likely failure modes: wrong alias, pagination, truncation, oversized records, and filter effectiveness. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without an exact response shape.

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?

At 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming players as the correct parameter, explaining that username is a broken alias, and clarifying that other filters like token_type are forwarded without implied effectiveness. It does not specify value formats for players or token_type, but it adds meaningful operational semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('archived token balances'), and scope ('explicitly supplied players'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling balance tools like player_balances or player_unclaimed_balances. It is not a tautology and immediately orients the agent.

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 gives explicit operational guidance for parameter selection ('Use players' rather than username, citing HTTP 500 probes) and warns that other declared filters may not be effective. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling alternatives or state when to choose archived balances over current balances, so the when-to-use guidance is mostly implied by the word 'archived.'

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