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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the search intent; it does not mention result ordering, pagination, or matching behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the functional purpose and followed by a usage cue. No wasted words or repetitive schema restatement.

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 tool is simple with two parameters, an output schema is present, and annotations cover safety. The description gives enough context for selecting the tool, though it could briefly clarify the limit parameter's role. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 only 50%, because the limit parameter has no schema description. The description mostly restates the query parameter's meaning and does not explain limit behavior, defaults, or constraints, leaving the undocumented parameter uncompensated.

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 states a clear verb and resource: find players by partial name, team abbreviation, or position. It also positions the tool as a pre-step before using other player tools, which distinguishes it from sibling tools, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when a name is ambiguous or only partly known before calling the other tools, giving a clear context. It does not list explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name specific sibling alternatives, but the guidance is still actionable.

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