peer_comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: the comparison uses medians and quartiles from public games, sample sizes are shown per rating band, and thin bands are flagged tentative with no verdict. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, so it falls short of the richest behavioral context.

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 two efficient sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the sample-size caveat placed immediately after. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry return and behavioral context. It explains the comparison basis and the tentative-band limitation, but 'blitz numbers' is vague and the returned metrics/format are not defined. It is enough to invoke with a username, but leaves real ambiguity about what the comparison output contains.

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%, so the schema only indicates a required 'username' string. The description's phrase 'the player's' implicitly maps to that parameter but never names it, describes its format, or adds constraints. For a single obvious required parameter this is minimally adequate, but it does little to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('the player's 3+0 blitz numbers') against a clearly defined benchmark ('players of other rating bands'). It is unambiguous about the peer-benchmarking focus, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling report tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling tool is named. The first sentence implies a peer-benchmarking use case, but the agent must infer when to select it over reports like weakness_report or coach_plan.

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