player_dec

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 thoroughly: it discloses pagination behavior ('Does not auto-fetch continuation pages'), truncation limits ('100 rows and 256 KiB'), and failure semantics ('Oversized records are refused without partial fields'). It also clarifies filter forwarding limitations, which is useful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded and each sentence contributes behavior or distinction. Some phrases like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' are vague and generic, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no-input read-only endpoint with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key exclusions, pagination, truncation, and error behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a relevant clarification that no player selector is declared, which prevents an agent from expecting player-filter inputs.

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 and resource: 'Read the global DEC accounting figures.' It distinguishes itself from player_balances by stating it has no player selector and does not report a player's DEC balance, which is sufficient to differentiate it from a similarly named sibling.

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 explicitly routes player-balance questions to player_balances, an alternative tool, and notes the absence of a player selector. It does not discuss other alternatives, but for a no-input global figures endpoint this is adequate context.

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