player_richlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that offset is not exposed, only one logical GET is made, continuation pages are not auto-fetched, results are capped at 100 rows/256 KiB, truncation is reported, and oversized records are refused. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 appropriately sized for the endpoint's caveats. Purpose and required inputs come first, followed by behavioral limits and data-size constraints; every sentence contributes information rather than restating the name.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for selection and invocation: it covers required inputs, top-N behavior, pagination/request behavior, local limits, truncation, oversized-record handling, and it states the returned quantities. No critical operational detail appears to be 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 add meaning, and it does: token_type is required, player adds a player_rank, and limit controls the leading rows returned. The wording around player_rank is slightly ambiguous, but all three parameters receive at least some semantic context beyond their raw schema types.

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 identifies a specific resource and action: reading token-holder rankings plus upstream total_accounts/total_quantity figures, and clarifies required vs optional inputs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling player_richlist_ranking, so it stops 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?

The description conveys that this is a top-N query, not a complete holder listing, and warns that declared filters may have no effect, which implies when it is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative tool or states explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions.

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