get_player_totals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explains the return format ('List of statistical totals...each containing field, games_played, count, average'), flexible ID/natural language support, and parameter behaviors like default limit. However, it omits edge-case behaviors such as empty results, rate limiting, or the performance cost of aggregating over all available matches.

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 well-structured with headers, bullet lists, and examples, making it easy to scan. It is slightly verbose due to the extensive metric list and the 'Common queries' section partially duplicating the Example section, but the extra detail is informative rather than wasteful.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers when to use, parameter semantics, output schema details, common query patterns, and a concrete example, leaving the agent fully equipped to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, but the Args section compensates by documenting all 10 parameters with meaningful semantics. For example, 'hero_id: Filter to specific hero (accepts name or ID like "Rubick")' and 'lane_role: Filter by lane (accepts "mid", "carry", "pos 1-4", etc.)' add crucial usage information beyond the schema types.

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 opens with 'Get aggregated performance statistics across ALL tracked metrics (GPM, KDA, damage, etc.)', which clearly identifies the tool's action and scope. It further differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming get_player_win_loss and get_player_histograms as alternatives for different question types.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use this when users ask about AVERAGE PERFORMANCE or AGGREGATE STATS' and lists concrete example queries. It also states when NOT to use it, directing users to get_player_win_loss() and get_player_histograms() for other analyses.

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