get_player_board

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that match_slug must be 'KashRock -vs- slug or kr_match_id' and not provider IDs, which is a real input-validation behavior. However, it does not state read-only status, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core output. The 'Builder+' fragment is vague and adds little, but the rest is compact and free of 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential return content and the critical match_slug constraint. It omits the purpose of optional parameters, authentication expectations, and typical usage context, making it adequate but not 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains the sport parameter's effect (CS2 vs Valorant output type) and the match_slug format, but leaves date, team1, and team2 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns player averages plus favourite weapons (CS2) or agent/role board (Valorant), tied to a match via match_slug. It distinguishes the output by sport, which helps differentiate it from generic player-stat siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_player_stats_full or research_player. The match_slug format note is parameter guidance, not usage context or alternative selection criteria.

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