time_pressure_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the shape of what comes back (per-zone error breakdowns, hasty vs considered blunders, phase timings, losses on time). However, it says nothing about whether it reads cached/synced data, whether it triggers computation, cost or latency, or whether a missing username returns an error.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core question ('how the clock affects a player's results') and then itemizes the deliverables. No filler, though the sentence is one long list with no separate guidance section.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description should do more for a 3-parameter analytical tool. It describes report contents but not the filtering behavior of last_n/time_class or any data prerequisites, leaving key invocation decisions unaddressed.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. 'A player's results' weakly implies username, but last_n (recency window) and time_class (bullet/blitz/rapid filter) are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 enumerates concrete report contents (errors by time-pressure zone, hasty vs considered blunders, time per phase, games lost on time), which makes the tool's resource distinctly about clock management rather than, say, tilt or openings. It's clear what the report covers, though the verb is implicit ('report') and no sibling is named.

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's no when-to-use framing, no prerequisite (e.g. games already synced), and no pointer to alternatives among the many sibling reports (tilt_report, resilience_report, worst_moments). An agent must infer that this is the clock-focused report from the content list alone.

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