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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond that: 'Defaults to the player's latest season' discloses default-value behavior, and 'Costs 5 credits' is a resource-consumption disclosure that helps agents budget calls. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the key usage signal ('Use for one player'), with each of the three sentences earning its place (scope, default behavior, cost). However, the first sentence is a long run-on enumeration of content categories that is somewhat hard to scan.

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 an output schema covers return values, 100% schema parameter coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete: it conveys scope, default behavior, and cost. Nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, though it could note that the player_id comes from search_players — but that already lives in the schema's parameter description.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (player_id from search_players, season year with default, season_type REG/POST). The description's 'Defaults to the player's latest season' largely duplicates the schema's season parameter note, adding no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific directive ('Use for one player') and exhaustively enumerates the returned content: bio, draft, physicals, headshot, id crosswalk, summed season totals across all stat categories, weekly stat lines, and games played. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_advanced_stats (different metric set) and get_player_leaders (aggregate across players, not one player).

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 opening 'Use for one player' establishes clear context for when to invoke this tool, and the content list further scopes it. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., no routing to get_advanced_stats for advanced metrics), so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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