player_authorities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explicitly states the tool never changes authorities (read-only), makes one logical GET request without auto-fetching continuation pages, and imposes local limits on array responses (100 rows, 256 KiB) with truncation reporting. It also discloses that oversized records are refused. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently written with every sentence adding value: purpose, read-only nature, request behavior, filter handling, and response limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language. No redundant or filler content.

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 essential aspects: purpose, read-only behavior, pagination behavior, and response limits. It does not describe the exact return structure or fields, but that may be inferred from the domain. The mention of 'array responses' implies the return type. Minor gap: no error handling details, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. It only refers to 'explicitly supplied players' without clarifying the format (e.g., comma-separated list or single string). The schema has a single string parameter 'players', but the description doesn't explain how to encode multiple players or whether the string expects a specific delimiter. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public purchase, delegation and rental authority assignments') with a clear scope ('for the explicitly supplied players'). It distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on authority assignments, which is unique among siblings. The read-only clarification further sharpens the purpose.

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 clear context on when to use it (to read authority assignments) but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., delegations_outgoing) or explain when to prefer this over them. The caveat about forwarded filters and upstream requirements gives some operational context but no comparative guidance.

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