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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the dataset size, the current-season-first search strategy, the automatic fallback to all players when nothing matches, and a concrete cost of 2 credits — all genuinely useful pre-call context. It doesn't say how matching works (case sensitivity, ranking of results) or how the limit ceiling interacts with the fallback.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the fallback behavior, then the downstream use and cost. Every clause carries information an agent needs; 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation isn't required, and the description still names the one field that matters downstream (GSIS id). Cost, scope, and fallback are all covered; only the ambiguity-resolution path for multiple partial matches is left unstated.

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 team, position, limit, active, and query are all already documented, including the active/fallback nuance. The description restates the fallback rather than adding new parameter meaning, so this sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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 and resource ("find a player by name (partial match)") plus the corpus scope (~25,000 players back to 1999) and the default result set. An agent can distinguish this from get_player_stats or get_player_leaders purely from the text.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the entry point for resolving a name to a GSIS id that get_player_stats then consumes, which gives clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g., use get_player_leaders for ranked leaderboards, get_team_stats for team-level queries) and doesn't say what to do with ambiguous multi-match results.

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