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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds non-annotation context: the dataset's date range (2010-11 onward), the default active-only behavior, and a 2-credit cost. Return format and pagination behavior are left unstated, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Five short sentences, each with a distinct job: trigger, scope, default behavior, next step, cost. The most decision-relevant information (what it does, when to use it) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it doesn't. For a read-only search tool it covers the trigger, defaults, cost, and the handoff to a sibling, leaving no gap an agent needs to fill before calling.

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 (team, limit, query, active, league, position) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the `active` default, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search/look up) and resource (players by name) with concrete scope: 4,900+ players since 2010-11. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_player_stats, which it names as the follow-up detail tool rather than a competitor.

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?

'Use when looking up a player by name' gives an explicit trigger, and it routes the agent onward to get_player_stats for full details. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., resolving IDs vs. bulk season stats), so it stops short of a 5.

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