get_player_totals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the return format (field/sum pairs) but omits important behavioral details such as how filters affect the aggregation, whether results include all game modes by default, pagination behavior, or any response limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with 19 parameters.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is also minimal to the point of under-specification. It front-loads the core concept but lacks supporting context (e.g., output shape details, filtering caveats) that would make it structurally complete for an agent.

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 the tool's complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It mentions the return format vaguely but does not clarify how the many filter parameters interact, what the default behavior is, or what an agent should expect in the response. This is a significant gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that filters will refine the aggregate totals. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full explanatory weight.

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 identifies a specific resource (lifetime aggregate totals for a player) and a clear verb (get, implied), and enumerates concrete fields (kills, deaths, assists, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_player_counts or get_player_histogram by stating the result is field/sum pairs, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or exclusion.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool returns, with no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make it preferable to similar player-stat tools like get_player_heroes or get_player_win_loss.

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