faceit_get_player_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('lifetime') and hints at the output ('K/D, ADR, win rate, headshot %, etc.'). However, it does not mention behavior on missing players, rate limits, authentication, or return format details beyond the stats list. This is adequate but leaves gaps for robustness.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place: verb, resource, stats examples, and input. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does and the key input. It does not fully detail the return structure, but the listed stats (K/D, ADR, win rate, headshot %) provide a sufficient overview for an agent to know what to expect. A 4 reflects a small gap in output specification.

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 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating 'player_id'. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the target resource ('a player's lifetime CS2 stats'), and the input ('using their player_id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like match history/stats by focusing on lifetime player stats, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when lifetime CS2 stats are needed) and specifies the required input ('player_id'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the pointer in the parameter description to faceit_find_player implies a workflow. Given the absence of explicit alternatives in the description itself, a 4 is appropriate.

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