rentals_by_player

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that paging and sort behavior are not yet independently established, that the response is bounded without automatic continuation, that it makes one logical GET request, that data is locally limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, and that oversized records are refused without partial fields. It also warns that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied without implied effectiveness. This is exemplary transparency for a read tool with no annotations.

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 well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and constraints. Every sentence adds information, and the warnings about paging, truncation, and wire strings are valuable. It is slightly long but justified given the lack of annotations and the need to disclose behavioral nuances. The structure is logical: purpose, constraints, observed behavior, data handling, and request behavior.

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 complexity (5 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the resource type, required inputs, limit bounds, paging behavior, truncation limits, refusal behavior, and data preservation requirements. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and interpret the response appropriately. The only minor gap is not naming sibling tools for alternative rental types, but the description's own clarity compensates.

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 explains that 'player' and 'limit' are required inputs reflecting tool policy and measured upstream requirements, and that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied without implied effectiveness. It also clarifies that quantity, paymentAmount, and pricePerToken should be preserved as wire strings. However, it doesn't add detail on the exact meaning of 'sort', 'order', or 'offset' beyond what the schema provides, though the schema itself is fairly self-explanatory for those. The description adds meaningful context for the required parameters and the filter 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 description clearly states the tool reads legacy SPSP delegation rental records for an explicit player with a limit of 1 to 100. It distinguishes this from worker-card rentals and names the resource type. The verb 'Read' plus the specific resource and constraints make the purpose 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for legacy SPSP delegation rental records, with a limit of 1 to 100, and notes that paging/sort behavior is not yet established. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other rental types, but the distinction from worker-card rentals and the explicit player requirement imply the usage context. It could be stronger by naming sibling tools like rentals_v3_by_player or rental_offers_by_player as alternatives.

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