get_mmr_details_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the return values (rank, ELO, RR, last game MMR change), which is useful, but it does not mention error handling, API key requirements (despite a sibling set_api_key), or rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 uses a clear Args/Returns structure and is appropriately sized, but the sentence 'Provides current competitive standing' is redundant with the opening line. It does not add substantial new information, preventing a perfect score.

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 getter tool, the description provides all parameter semantics and return fields. It also distinguishes 'current' from historical/detailed siblings. However, it omits potential failure modes (e.g., player not found, invalid region) and does not mention any required setup like an API key. These gaps keep 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name, tag, and region with valid codes (ap, na, eu, kr, br, latam). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's types and default values.

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 'Get current MMR and rank for a player' with a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'current competitive standing' distinguishes it from historical or detailed analysis tools. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 current MMR/rank, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_mmr_history_by_name or get_detailed_competitive_analysis. There is no 'when to use' or 'instead of' guidance, only implied context from the word 'current.'

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