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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing the 5-credit cost and the latest-season default, though it does not discuss pagination or output volume.

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 front-loaded with 'Use for one player' and uses only three sentences, with the long list of stat categories earning its space by defining the tool's output scope. The credit cost and default are placed at the end without unnecessary prose.

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 full schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the single-player scope, default season, returned stat categories, and credit cost. Remaining parameter details are adequately handled by the schema and output schema.

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 parameters are already well documented, including player_id format, season default, and season_type enum. The description repeats the latest-season default but adds no parameter meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states this is for one player and enumerates the returned data: bio, draft, physicals, ID crosswalk, summed season totals, weekly lines, and games played. It implicitly distinguishes from team/leader tools by saying 'for one player,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_advanced_stats.

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 phrase 'Use for one player' gives a clear usage context, and the description notes the latest-season default and credit cost. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as get_advanced_stats or get_player_leaders.

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