get_global_game_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite (stat names from schema) but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the aggregated stats represent (e.g., averages, totals). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a crucial prerequisite. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with two well-documented parameters.

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?

Given the complexity (aggregated stats retrieval with a prerequisite), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'global aggregated stats' means (e.g., across all players?), the format of returned data, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (app_id and stat_names) adequately. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that stat_names should be obtained from 'get_game_schema', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'global aggregated stats for a game', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_game_stats' (which likely retrieves player-specific stats), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 usage by mentioning 'requires knowing stat names from schema', which suggests a prerequisite (using get_game_schema first). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_game_stats' or other data retrieval tools, leaving usage context partially implied.

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