player_skins

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: no paging selector, possible bounded leading rows, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, local 100-row/256 KiB truncation with reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It also warns that declared filters are forwarded without implying their effectiveness.

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 front-loads the purpose and then lists important caveats, but it contains redundancy and boilerplate: the no-auto-fetch warning partly repeats the bounded-rows warning, and the mention of 'other declared filters' refers to filters not present in the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers request behavior, response-size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal behavior. It does not describe the structure of skin rows, but the operational caveats are sufficient for an agent to call and interpret results.

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 schema has one required username parameter with no description, and the description adds only modest meaning by connecting it to 'one player.' The statement that required inputs reflect policy and measured upstream requirements is generic and does not explain details like format or expected value semantics.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Read owned skin rows for one player.' This clearly identifies a player-scoped read tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as player_inventory or cards_skins.

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 the tool is for retrieving one player's owned skin rows, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. An agent can infer the basic use case, but not when this tool should be preferred over sibling endpoints.

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