list_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the relational fact that these stat names are shared with `leaderboard` and `player_stats`; it does not add behavioral details like rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the list is static. That modest added context fits a 3 given the annotation coverage.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose and the sibling relationship immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description supplies the needed context: what the list contains and how it relates to `leaderboard` and `player_stats`. The only missing piece is explicit usage guidance, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is 100% and there are no parameters to document, so the description need not add anything further.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'stat names', and it explicitly ties the list to two sibling tools (`leaderboard`, `player_stats`), so an agent can distinguish it from find_player, situational_stats, etc. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

It names the related sibling tools and implies the list is the vocabulary for those endpoints, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this before calling leaderboard' or when not to use it, nor does it state alternatives beyond the relational mention.

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