player_authorities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it explicitly says the tool never changes authorities, makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, and documents 100-row/256 KiB truncation plus 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?

The main purpose is front-loaded and the behavior notes are dense but relevant. Minor structural issues, such as the run-on 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' and vague policy boilerplate, keep it from a 5.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, input semantics, safety, pagination behavior, and result-size limits. It lacks an explicit response-shape description but otherwise gives an agent enough to invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides only a required 'players' string with no description, so the description must compensate. It adds that players are public account names, not credentials, and must be explicitly supplied. It does not specify whether multiple names are supported or their delimiter/format, and the generic 'other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' phrase is not actionable for a one-parameter tool.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Read public purchase, delegation and rental authority assignments' for explicitly supplied players, making the tool's function clear. It also emphasizes 'never changes authorities', confirming a read-only scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 read-only purpose and 'public ... authority assignments for explicitly supplied players' imply when to use it: to inspect authorities for given players. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives among the many delegation/rental siblings, leaving routing partially to inference.

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