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

Read-only/open-world hints already cover safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: values are 0-100, coverage spans current plus up to three prior years, goalkeepers swap attacking scores for saves/anticipation, and non-football players yield a not-found response. These edge cases are exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot provide.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the return content, then the required parameter and edge cases. It is information-rich with minimal padding, though the one long sentence is somewhat packed.

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, return shape needn't be restated, and the description covers inputs, year scope, and the two notable edge cases (goalkeepers, non-football players). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without reading the 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the required numeric SofaScore player id with an example. The description adds 'Requires a player id' but no format or constraint beyond what the schema states.

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 (Returns) and resource (player attribute scores, position average, characteristics) with concrete details like the 0-100 scale and year range. It is distinguishable from generic player tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the many sibling sofascore_player_* tools (e.g., sofascore_player_season_statistics).

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?

Implies usage by stating 'Requires a player id' and describing the returned content, but never says when to pick this over sofascore_player, sofascore_player_ratings, or sofascore_player_statistics_seasons. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative pointers.

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