get_player_win_loss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns without mentioning any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. Given the absence of annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.

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?

One sentence containing the core purpose and the key referencing constraint. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded and immediately useful.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose and filter association, but with no output schema, it omits details about the response structure, pagination behavior, or any limitations. For a tool with 19 parameters, a bit more context on expected output would improve completeness, yet the core functionality is clear.

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?

While the schema already provides 100% description coverage, the tool description adds value by explicitly stating that filters are identical to get_player_matches, which is a strong hint for agents already familiar with that tool. This contextual linkage makes parameter usage clearer than the schema alone.

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 tool's function: getting a player's win/loss counts and win rate. It also references the sibling tool get_player_matches to clarify filter behavior, making it easy to distinguish from other sibling tools like get_player_totals or get_player_counts.

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 mentions that it uses the same filters as get_player_matches, which gives a useful reference point but does not explicitly define when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks direct exclusions or conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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