get_player_hiscore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but omits details like how game mode and type affect the result, whether the tool handles multiple players in a single call (as 'Multi comparison' suggests), and any potential errors or rate limits. The ambiguity around 'activity' and comparison behavior leaves significant gaps.

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 a clear one-sentence summary followed by a list of relevant examples. The examples are useful and not overly verbose, though some could be trimmed. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a high score for efficient use of space.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must compensate. It leaves key questions unanswered: whether multiple players can be compared in one call, what constitutes an 'activity', whether output format is consistent across types, and how gameMode 'rs' differs from 'osrs' in practice. The examples hint at multi-player support but the schema only accepts a single playerName, creating confusion. This incomplete picture makes it hard for an agent to fully use the tool 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds some value through examples that illustrate playerName and gameMode usage, but it does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema. The added examples show type variations (ironman) but do not explain all type options; thus it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 rank, level, and experience/score, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource (player hiscore). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_top_rankings, which also deals with hiscores, so it loses a point for missing sibling distinction.

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 examples provide implied usage scenarios (single lookups, comparisons, specific modes like ironman), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring a valid game mode. The context is inferred from examples rather than stated.

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