propline_get_player_history

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

The description discloses tier-based data redaction for free tier and mentions return fields. However, it does not address rate limits, idempotency, or other potential side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with key purpose, then adds tier detail. Efficient and well-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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains return fields and tier behavior but lacks detail on parameter interactions and output format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 75%. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by summarizing returned data but does not clarify how parameters like 'limit' or 'markets' affect output.

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 it returns player prop history with specific fields like line, prices, resolution, and actual value. It distinguishes tiers but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the name implies uniqueness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative propline tools. The only context is a tier difference (pro vs free), but no prerequisites or usage scenarios are mentioned.

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