player_archived_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: one logical GET, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, filters forwarded without implied effectiveness, 100-row/256 KiB local array limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields.

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?

Every sentence delivers operational value; there is no filler. The most important parameter guidance is front-loaded, and response-limit details are packed into compact, scannable sentences.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, required input selection, request behavior, pagination, and array truncation/refusal. Nothing essential for calling this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description directly resolves the critical players-vs-username ambiguity by explaining that the username alias returned HTTP 500 in probes. It also warns that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied without implying effectiveness. It does not enumerate possible token_type values, leaving a small semantic gap.

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 'Read archived token balances for the explicitly supplied players,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. The word 'archived' differentiates it from nearby siblings such as player_balances without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

It gives clear context: the tool is for archived balances and requires explicit players, and it instructs the agent to use 'players' instead of 'username' based on measured upstream failures. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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