faceit_getPlayerRanking

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the endpoint and parameters but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response beyond 'Ranking'. The term 'nearby context' is vague.

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 concise with two sentences of core purpose, a usage guideline, endpoint, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters but does not detail the return value structure beyond 'Ranking'. Given no output schema, more detail on the response fields (e.g., position, nearby players) would improve completeness for an agent to use the response correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: game_id, region, player_id, country (with ISO code hint), and limit (with min/max). However, it does not specify how limit affects the nearby context.

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 retrieves a player's position in the global ranking of a game, using the verb 'retrieve' and specifying the resource 'user position'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'getGlobalRanking' by noting it fetches a single player's position and nearby context, not the full leaderboard.

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 explicitly says 'Use to fetch one player's position and nearby context' and directs users to 'getGlobalRanking' for the full leaderboard, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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