get_user_personal_bests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it explains that the endpoint is unpaginated, clarifying the meaning of total_available vs returned after applying limit. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial pagination caveat. There is no fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description gives a reasonable outline of what is returned (personal bests with game/category names) and explains the pagination fields. It does not detail the full structure of each PB or error handling, but for a read-only, open-world tool this is adequate.

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 both parameters (user and limit) are already well-documented. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves; it only references limit in the pagination note, which is more about output semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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', the resource 'a player's personal best runs', and specifies that it spans all games and includes game/category names. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_game_records or list_runs, as it is uniquely focused on per-user personal bests.

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 provides clear context that this is for fetching a user's PBs across all games, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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