get_player_histogram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the histogram concept and common fields but does not disclose behavior such as how bins are computed, what the response contains, whether the 'win' parameter filters results, or any default scoping. The phrase 'wins per x-value' hints at the output but leaves the exact semantics ambiguous.

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 compact, with a clear purpose statement followed by a succinct list of common field values. It front-loads the concept and uses no unnecessary words; every part contributes directly.

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 20 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks any explanation of response structure, pagination, default values, or how filters like 'win', 'significant', or 'date' affect the histogram. An agent invoking this tool would still need to infer much behavior from undocumented conventions.

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 input schema already covers all 20 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a more comprehensive list of valid values for the required 'field' parameter (kills, deaths, assists, etc.) than the schema's examples, thereby providing practical extra meaning for choosing an appropriate field.

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 identifies the resource (one stat for a player) and the nature of the output (a distribution/histogram), e.g., 'wins per x-value'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'Retrieve' or 'Get', and while it distinguishes from totals/counts by implying distribution, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_player_totals or get_player_counts. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or mention any sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and schema.

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