player_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The verb "Get" and the purely informational field list imply a non-mutating read with no side effects, and "authoritative" signals the result is server-canonical rather than cached — genuinely useful context beyond the schema. It stops short of stating cost, polling suitability, or behavior before a match exists.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the highest-value term (what state is being read) is front-loaded. Every item in the list carries information; nothing repeats the tool name or title.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description alone must convey the return value, and it names four fields — but leaves their shapes and value ranges ambiguous (what values can "readiness" or "connection state" take, how is an "authoritative match outcome" represented when no match has concluded). Adequate to select the tool, thin for interpreting its result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema provides complete input semantics and the description has nothing to add on that axis; the baseline of 4 would apply if the description were otherwise silent on inputs. It scores 3 only because it spends its words on outputs instead, which is covered under completeness.

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?

"Get" plus an explicit enumeration of the retrieved fields (readiness, connection state, controlled player ID, authoritative match outcome) tells an agent exactly what this returns. It is reasonably distinguishable from observe_player and observe_map_region, though the description never draws that boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the list of fields — an agent can infer "call this to check whether the game is ready/connected or what the match result was." There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of observe_player, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., must be in a game).

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