get_player_win_loss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states the return format ('Dictionary with exactly two fields: win and lose'), mentions it returns ONLY win/loss counts, and notes support for both IDs and natural language. It could add edge-case behavior (e.g., no matches found, invalid hero name), but it is already highly transparent for a read-only query tool.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when-to-use, parameter details, return values, and examples. Every paragraph earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's nine flexible parameters and the need to distinguish between similar sibling tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 covers all nine parameters, return format, common usage scenarios, and explicit alternatives. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing external documentation. The output schema is simple, and the description fully complements it.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description thoroughly explains every parameter, including accepted types and values (e.g., lane_role integer-to-string mapping, hero_id integer or name, included_account_id as string or list). It also provides common query examples for each meaningful filter, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get simple win/loss counts for a player with optional filters.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_heroes_played and get_player_totals, and the tool name itself is clear. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when users ask about WIN RATES or WIN/LOSS RECORDS') and provides concrete example queries. It also names alternatives ('use get_heroes_played() instead', 'use get_player_totals() instead'), making the decision boundary crystal clear.

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