cr_top_players

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 is too minimal: it does not disclose authentication needs (api_key), rate limits, pagination, or what happens when locationId is omitted. The behavioral characteristics are largely undocumented.

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 sentence and front-loaded. While concise, it is under-informative for the two-parameter tool. It could be more efficient by providing parameter details without excessive length.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool, crucial contextual information is missing.

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%. The description only hints at the locationId parameter context ('globally or by location') but does not specify its format or valid values. The api_key parameter is completely ignored. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top Clash Royale players'), and clarifies scope ('globally or by location'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cr_player, which likely retrieves individual player data. However, it could be more precise about what 'top' means (e.g., by trophies).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cr_player. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it. The agent has to infer from the name alone.

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