player_recent_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the tool never accepts a decrypt_key, makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, forwards filters without guaranteeing effectiveness, limits arrays to 100 rows/256 KiB, reports truncation, and refuses oversized records. This is rich behavioral disclosure, though it does not describe the response structure or error behavior beyond these constraints.

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 is compact given the number of behavioral constraints it communicates. A couple of sentences ('Required inputs reflect tool policy...' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied') are somewhat abstract and could be sharper, but overall every sentence adds functional value.

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 two-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description covers a lot: no decrypt_key, single request, no continuation pagination, local limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. However, the 'format' parameter is left unexplained, and there is no description of the actual response fields, so some information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, but it only clarifies that decrypt_key is never accepted. It does not explain what 'format' means or what values it accepts, nor does it explicitly state that 'player' is an account name/ID. The statement 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' is a caveat, not a definition, leaving the actual parameters under-described.

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, 'Read the public recent team compositions for one player,' names a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from the many other player_* siblings. It adds important qualifiers ('public', 'for one player') but does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would use this when it needs a player's recent team compositions. However, the description does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name any alternative tool, so it lacks the explicit routing that would earn a 4 or 5.

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