player_inventory

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

Discloses many behaviors beyond the annotations: type is not an exact row-type predicate, item_detail_id filters locally before truncation, counts are reported, truncation is explicit with no continuation fetched, one logical GET is made, a 2-MiB transport bound applies, and no credentials or mutations are involved. This is rich, non-contradictory 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 description is front-loaded with purpose and packed with useful detail, but it includes the highly specific and tangential 'Power Core item detail ID 322 was absent' observation and somewhat repeats the staking-eligibility caveat in the later power-core-tool sentence. Not every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation-critical details: result bounds, truncation behavior, local filtering, counts, transport limit, GET semantics, and authentication posture. It does not describe the exact response shape, but it supplies enough behavioral detail for correct use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully: it explains type's upstream-filter semantics and the Land/Token caveat, and explains that item_detail_id filters the returned array locally without another request. It does not elaborate on username or enumerate valid type values, so it falls short of a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('one account's inventory'), and a distinct scoping constraint ('explicit upstream type filter'). This differentiates the tool from sibling tools like player_balances and players_item_details without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives clear context about when to use the tool (reading one account's inventory with a type filter) and provides an explicit when-not/alternative for staking eligibility: 'Separate land_power_core_available and land_power_core_grouped tools expose...' It does not broadly compare to other inventory-related siblings, but the main exclusion is well covered.

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