scout_opponent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what the tool returns (ELO, form, H2H, VODs) and implies it is read-only (generating a report). However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but not fully transparent.

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 that efficiently lists all key outputs. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While dense, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of output items, but overall it earns its length with specific details.

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, the description must fully explain return values. It enumerates ELO/rank/tier, best time, recent form, H2H record, and VOD links with timestamps. However, it lacks details on the structure or format of the report (e.g., is it a JSON object with specific keys?), leaving some ambiguity. Given the complexity of combining multiple data sources, the description is adequate but not 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?

The input schema already has clear descriptions for both parameters (targetIdentifier as opponent's ID, myIdentifier as user's ID to include H2H). The tool description adds value by explaining that providing myIdentifier includes a head-to-head record, linking the parameter to the output behavior. With 100% schema coverage, this is a strong addition.

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's purpose: generating a scouting report on a target player. It specifies the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'scouting report', and distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_players and get_player by offering a comprehensive, single-report output combining ELO, form, H2H, and VODs.

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 implies when to use ('before a match') and mentions the optional myIdentifier for H2H, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage context is implied but lacks clear guidance on trade-offs.

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