get_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), which is correct, but lacks details about response format, pagination, or any side effects. It is not misleading but incomplete.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key parameter usage. No wasted words; front-loaded with the main action.

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 the simple tool (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention that only basic stats are returned (vs. detailed match data), but the context signals indicate low 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the slug parameter with concrete examples ('lionel-messi', 'lebron-james', 'virat-kohli'), which helps the agent understand the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'Player slug.'.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'player statistics and metadata', specifies the unique identifier (slug), and provides typical examples. It distinguishes from siblings like get_match_detail and get_team_schedule.

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 description implies when to use (when you have a player slug, e.g., 'lionel-messi'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. For instance, there is no guidance on tools for team-based queries or search.

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