player_burn_event_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a lot: one logical GET, no auto-pagination, 100-row / 256 KiB local limits with reported truncation, refusal of oversized records, and that a missing username is an upstream rejection rather than account-existence proof. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded, but several sentences are boilerplate or irrelevant: 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' refer to filters that do not exist in the schema. That noise dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers request count, pagination behavior, size limits, truncation reporting, and failure semantics well. Auth/scoping and the shape of the returned record remain unspecified, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compensate. It clarifies that the username must be explicit and that a missing value is rejected upstream, but it adds no format or origin detail (e.g., Hive account name) and the note about 'other declared filters' is vacuous since additionalProperties is false with only one param.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the public burn-event player record for an explicit username.' This is distinguishable from the family of sibling burn-event tools (player_burn_event_prizes, player_burn_event_leaderboard, player_burn_event_full_leaderboard) as the per-player record. It does not explicitly name those siblings, 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?

'For an explicit username' implies the caller must already know the username, which hints at the usage condition. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given (e.g., leaderboards vs record). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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