player_dec

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals it makes a single logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits array responses to 100 rows and 256 KiB with reported truncation, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. It also discloses that filters are forwarded as supplied without implied effectiveness. This is exceptionally transparent about the tool's operational quirks.

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 dense but every sentence provides distinct value: purpose, scope clarification, pagination behavior, required inputs policy, filter handling, size limits, and truncation/refusal policy. It is front-loaded with the most critical purpose and differentiation, and no sentence is redundant or filler.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it does not do, its request behavior, size limits, truncation handling, and refusal policy. While it does not detail the output format, the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make the provided information sufficient for an agent to call it 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 0 parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds general context about how any declared filters would be forwarded, but since there are none, it does not need to elaborate on parameter specifics. It earns the baseline 4 for providing some behavioral context around parameters without being required to describe any.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Read the global DEC accounting figures.' It distinguishes itself from player_balances by explicitly stating it does not report a player's DEC balance and directs the agent to use player_balances for that question. This makes the tool's purpose precise and distinct from its 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 provides usage guidance by stating 'use player_balances for that question' when a player-specific balance is needed, and notes the absence of a player selector, signaling it is for global figures only. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction relative to the most relevant sibling.

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