Ask the coach about a replay

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

Annotations mark this non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description explains exactly why: each call consumes a question from a quota (first 3 free, then 1 mineral per 20). It also discloses the prerequisite report, the confirmation requirement before purchase, and that remaining free/unlocked questions are surfaced. That is rich behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the cost model and output note; nothing is wasted. The parentheticals are informative rather than filler, though the cost sentence is packed enough to be slightly hard to parse on first read.

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 no output schema, the description still covers the return signal (remaining free/unlocked questions), the precondition (existing AI Coach report), the cost and the escape hatch (unlock_more_questions, with user confirmation). An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and to explain the cost to the user.

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 100% and both parameters (replay, question) are fully documented in the schema, including accepted replay identifier formats. The description adds only the framing that the question is a 'follow-up' in the user's words, which is largely redundant, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (ask a follow-up question about a replay) and states the prerequisite that the replay must have an AI Coach report. It implicitly separates itself from search_sc2_knowledge by noting the coach itself checks the knowledge base, but it never explicitly contrasts with get_analysis or analyze_replay, which an agent would weigh when routing a replay question.

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?

Clear context for use: a follow-up question, on a replay that already has an AI Coach report, with an explicit instruction to ask the user before spending minerals via unlock_more_questions. It lacks a stated 'when not to use' case (e.g., general StarCraft questions should go to search_sc2_knowledge), so the routing is good but not exhaustive.

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