espn_athlete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: the data comes from ESPN's credential-free public JSON, the call returns exactly one athlete, and the league value must be valid for the chosen sport. It does not cover error behavior or what happens for invalid combinations, but for a read-only fetch the critical traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the first sentence immediately identifies what the tool returns. The second sentence is a long enumeration of enums that duplicates the input schema, which is slightly wasteful but still readable and useful for agents that don't open the schema.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: target resource, returned fields, source access, and parameter constraints. It lacks explicit guidance on alternate tools or failure modes, but an agent has enough to construct a valid request. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing the expected return fields.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the enum values. The description repeats the sport and league enums and restates the sport/league validity rule, but does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only makes the constraints more immediately visible. The athlete parameter gets no additional explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Returns one athlete's bio/overview' and enumerates the exact fields (name, position, jersey, physicals, current team). This clearly scopes the tool to a single athlete, distinguishing it from sibling tools like espn_team_roster and espn_team without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 usage ('Returns one athlete's bio/overview') and explains the sport/league constraint, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as espn_team_roster or espn_teams. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so the agent must infer the tool's niche from its name and scope.

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