get_player_game_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains output structure ('Each row is one player-game with the raw stat JSON') and pagination mechanism. Does not mention performance implications or authentication needs, but is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, filtering requirement, row structure, and pagination. No waste.

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?

No output schema, so description must cover return format. It does so adequately with 'raw stat JSON' and row count. Could elaborate on stat fields, but given tool complexity, this is sufficient. Pagination and filtering constraints are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value: the requirement that at least one filter be provided (not present in schema), default limit behavior, and pagination cursor explanation. This goes beyond schema rephrasing.

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 it provides 'Bulk per-game player stat rows (game logs)' filtered by player, team, or event. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_player_stats (likely aggregated) by emphasizing per-game and raw stat JSON.

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?

States required filter constraint ('At least one of player_id / team_id / event_id is required') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools. However, the context of sibling tools is clear.

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