Get SkyBlock Bingo Progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations do not carry: the HYPIXEL_API_KEY requirement and the fact that absent participation is reported as unknown rather than as a failure. It still says nothing about pagination or result volume.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. Efficient, though the 'stays unknown' clause reads slightly cryptic out of context.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is thin. It omits how limit controls pagination and how uuid/username are expected to be supplied (both optional, zero required), which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 only 40%, so the description is expected to compensate. It loosely maps to eventId and includeCurrentEvent ('optionally match the current event goals') and identifies the player/uuid target, but leaves 'limit' and the uuid-vs-username relationship entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a player's Bingo event history') plus the optional enrichment ('match the current event goals'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set, which contains no other Bingo tool, though it does not name a sibling it must not be confused with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for Bingo data, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named. The note that 'missing participation stays unknown' hints at result conditions rather than invocation guidance.

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