HTB Rank Progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the concrete content of the response (rank, points, percent progress, ownership), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention authentication requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the field inventory and closing with the usage trigger. The enumerated field list is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema to document returns.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of describing return content, which it does thoroughly. Only auth/permission expectations are left implicit, which is a minor gap for a read-only, open-world 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('rank progression') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (current rank/points, next rank, rank_requirement, rank_ownership). It is clearly narrower than htb_user_info or htb_user_activity, though it never names those siblings explicitly to draw the boundary.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this to answer "how close am I to ranking up?"', which tells an agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming htb_user_info as the alternative for general profile data.

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