get_player_rating_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the data granularity (per match) and the focus on rank medal changes, which is behavioral info, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or how the data is ordered. The granularity adds value, but side-effect disclosure is missing.

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 succinct sentence that packs the key purpose and data grain. It is front-loaded with the resource and the specific data type, with no fluff.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys the core function but stops short of defining the expected response format beyond 'snapshots'. It is minimal, and with no annotations to off-load safety information, an agent might need to infer the output structure and limits.

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%, and the parameter account_id is already well-documented within the schema itself. The description adds nothing extra about parameter usage or constraints; the baseline is adequate because the schema carries the semantics.

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 that it returns a player's rank medal history over time, specifically as rank_tier snapshots per match. It identifies the subject (player) and the resource (rating history) but does not explicitly differentiate from other player-related tools except implicitly by topic. It is specific enough to avoid tautology.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for selecting it over other player history tools like get_player_histogram or get_player_hero_rankings. There is no mention of the type of request or prerequisite context beyond the account_id parameter.

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