get_versus

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states read-like behavior (win/loss record) but does not disclose data freshness, caching, or authorization needs. No mention of side effects or limitations.

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?

Single sentence, clearly front-loaded with verb and resource. No unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for the functionality described.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content (win/loss record and win rates). Could hint at season filtering impact but not necessary given parameter description already exists.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description does not add additional meaning beyond 'two players' which is already captured by required parameter names. No parameter format or usage details provided beyond 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?

Description clearly specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'head-to-head win/loss record', and includes scope 'between two players' and 'win rates for both sides'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_versus_matches' which provides match-level data.

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?

Description implies usage for obtaining head-to-head summary statistics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'compare_players' or 'scout_opponent'. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios mentioned.

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