espn_athlete

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

The description mentions the data source (public JSON) but does not disclose rate limits, potential missing data, or other behavioral aspects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose in first, enum details in second.

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 no output schema, the description lists the main return fields, which is helpful. It could mention if additional metadata (e.g., links, stats) is included, but overall it is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds crucial semantics by listing all valid enum values for sport and league explicitly, which the schema only labels as 'Sport key' and 'League key'. It also notes the league must be valid for the sport.

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 it returns one athlete's bio/overview with specific fields (name, position, jersey, physicals, current team). It distinguishes itself from siblings like espn_team or espn_team_roster by focusing on individual athlete data.

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 provides context about credential-free access and enum values for sport and league, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others (e.g., espn_team_roster for a team's roster). No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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