player_quests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: reward strings are passed through unchanged, pagination is not auto-fetched, responses are capped at 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, and oversized records are refused without partial fields. This is behavioral detail far beyond a simple read statement.

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 the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds real behavioral information. It is slightly boilerplate-heavy for a one-parameter tool, particularly the 'required inputs reflect tool policy' and 'other declared filters' sentences, but it remains compact and logically ordered.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers request behavior, pagination, size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal behavior. The only notable gap is the absence of any detail about the structure or content of the returned quest rows beyond the JSON-encoded rewards strings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it adds only 'one player' and a policy note for the required username. That clarifies that username identifies the player, but it does not explain username format or validation beyond the schema's minLength, and the sentence about 'other declared filters' is confusing because additionalProperties is false and no other filters are declared.

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 specific verb and object: 'Read the quest rows returned for one player.' It clearly identifies the resource (quest rows), the subject (one player), and the read-only nature, which distinguishes it from the many other player_* and reward-oriented tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of an alternative tool. The statement about not auto-fetching continuation pages hints at a single-page use case, but the description never tells an agent when player_quests should be chosen over player_current_rewards, player_last_season_rewards, or other quest-related endpoints.

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