player_presale_leaders

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: single logical GET, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, local row and size limits, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and pagination ineffectiveness. This comprehensive disclosure exceeds what the schema provides.

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 verbose and includes very specific test observations (e.g., 'tested limit=2 and offset=2 query had no effect') and upstream capture details that may be unnecessary for an agent. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be tightened significantly.

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, the description gives a solid sense of the response (leader rows, total pack figures, optional player record) and important behaviors (truncation, refusal, pagination). Missing error scenarios, but adequate for a read-only tool with a single optional parameter.

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 sole parameter, username, is explained as adding a separate curr_player record retained outside the bounded leaders list. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by providing functional meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 clearly states it reads presale leader rows and upstream total pack figures, with an optional username to add a separate player record. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling leaderboard tools like player_leaderboard.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description mentions policy and parameter forwarding, but does not outline use cases or exclusions, leaving agents to infer applicability.

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