player_reward_delegations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that percent values preserve original wire types, that it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, forwards filters without guaranteeing effectiveness, limits array responses to 100 rows/256 KiB with truncation reporting, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. This is exceptionally transparent about behavior beyond the schema.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates on behavioral details. It is not overly verbose, each sentence adds value. However, the last sentence about oversized records could be considered an edge case detail, but it is still relevant. Slightly long but well structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it behaves (pagination, limits, errors), and what inputs are required. It is complete for an agent to call it correctly without surprising behavior.

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 mentions 'required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' but does not detail the username parameter semantics beyond the schema's minLength. However, with only one parameter, the description adds context that required inputs are policy-bound, though it could explain what 'username' means (e.g., player account name). Slight gap but adequate.

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 the tool reads current reward-delegation rows for one player, specifying the resource ('reward-delegation rows') and scope ('for one player'). It is distinct from siblings like player_reward_delegation_history (historical) and lists the required input. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for reading current delegation rows and notes required inputs reflect tool policy, which helps an agent understand constraints. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling player_reward_delegation_history or other delegation tools, but clear context is given for when to use it.

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