player_leaderboard_with_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the one-logical-GET behavior, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, local 100-row/256 KiB limits, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and upstream HTTP 200 error behavior when season is omitted. It also notes the player record is retained even when the leaderboard is shortened. These details go well beyond a simple read operation.

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 front-loads purpose and packs in many constraints, but it has grammatical issues and missing punctuation ('request Does'), awkward phrasing ('list are'), and some redundancy around required inputs. It could be tightened without losing information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers many operational behaviors (limits, truncation, no continuation fetching) and identifies required inputs. However, it does not describe the response structure or the semantics of the optional format and leaderboard parameters, leaving an agent with gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 confirms season and username are required and says other declared filters are forwarded as supplied, but it does not define 'format' or 'leaderboard' values or behavior. This leaves significant parameter meaning undocumented.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool reads a season leaderboard plus the requested player's separate rank record, distinguishing it from player_leaderboard and similar leaderboard tools. The verb 'Read' and the resource 'selected season's leaderboard... requested player's separate rank record' are specific. No sibling is named, but the unique combination is explicit.

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 states required inputs and notes that other filters are forwarded as supplied, implying this tool is used when both leaderboard and a player's rank are needed. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like player_leaderboard or state when not to use it, leaving usage to inference.

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