player_last_season_rewards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so exceptionally well. It warns that null glint fields were observed, that a missing figure does not mean zero earnings, that only one account and one season were captured, and that no equivalence with the current-season route was tested. This is unusually honest and 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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds relevant caveats about response shape, nulls, and sample size. It is slightly longer than typical, but the extra length is justified by the unusual uncertainty the description communicates.

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 GET tool, the description provides route, response-shape context, and important caveats. There is no output schema, so it partially explains return values and field types, but it stops short of listing exact field names or a response example, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required username parameter, and the description only loosely refers to 'one account' without explaining the username parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the property name already implies. The description does not meaningfully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Return the previous season's glint totals for one account from GET /players/last_season_rewards.' It clearly distinguishes this from the current-season route by emphasizing 'previous season' and 'separate route,' so an agent can tell it apart from player_current_rewards and other reward-related tools.

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: this is for previous-season glint totals, and it explicitly says this is a separate route from the current-season one. It does not name the exact sibling tool to use for current-season data or explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the path and season framing make the intended use clear.

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