internal_players_v1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and authentication requirement (API key), but does not describe the response format, error behavior, data scope, or any side effects. For a stats endpoint, this is a significant gap beyond what the schema offers.

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 concise and front-loaded with the HTTP method and purpose. It efficiently communicates required parameter, auth, and a pointer to full docs. The text is slightly dense due to the mix of Chinese and environment variable list, but every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description gives the essential invocation details (method, resource, required param, auth) and points to a guide for full instructions. However, it lacks any description of the return value or data structure, especially with no output schema available. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about the response content.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only restates that query.appid is required, which is already in the schema. It adds no extra meaning about appid's format, valid values, or how the parameter affects the request, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 explicitly states '[GET] /internal/players/v1 - Number of Players Statistics', providing a clear verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling internal_* tools (e.g., internal_rates_v1, internal_reviews_v1) by specifying it returns player count statistics.

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 indicates a required query parameter (appid) and API key, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage context is implied: use when needing number of players statistics for a given appid, but no alternative/comparison guidance is provided.

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