get_game_high_scores

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. However, the description does not disclose any additional behavior, such as how scores are scoped to a user or message.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. 'Get high scores for a game.' is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is slightly under-specified, though this is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 that the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to guide correct invocation. It does not mention the need for user_id, the role of chat_id/message_id/inline_message_id, or what the response contains. The context of the tool within the game API (e.g., as a companion to send_game and set_game_score) is not explained.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (user_id, chat_id, message_id, inline_message_id). The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description must compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, which it fails to do. No information about which parameters are required or how they interplay is provided.

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 states the action clearly: 'Get high scores for a game.' It specifies a verb and resource, making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like set_game_score or get_user_profile_photos, though the name itself is fairly specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as the need for a user_id or the context of message_id vs inline_message_id. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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