get_player_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the output is a time series with one point per date, but lacks details on date ranges, edge cases, or error behavior. For a simple read-only history tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key output and use case with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and clearly structured.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It could mention the data format or prerequisites, but the overall context is complete enough.

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 schema has one parameter (player_id) with no description, and the description does not explicitly define it. However, the phrase 'A player's Elo...' implies that player_id identifies the player, offering minimal compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 returns a player's Elo and EAR over time, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide single-point data like value or style. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous from the context.

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 specifies the tool is 'useful for form/trend analysis and charts', giving clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is well-defined.

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