fotmob_player

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It says 'public' and 'Returns', implying a read-only operation, and adds the default inclusion of market values. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, require no authentication, or describe data freshness or rate limits. The read-only nature is inferable but not explicit.

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 moderately concise but contains redundancy: the opening phrase 'FotMob player profile' repeats the tool name and the subsequent sentence, and 'Market values are included by default' repeats what is already in the input schema and the earlier 'market values' mention. It would be tighter without these duplications.

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?

The description lists the main return content, states the data is public, and provides the ID discovery path, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it does not explicitly describe the response format, potential errors, or differentiate itself from the closely related fotmob_player_stats and fotmob_player_matches tools, leaving some ambiguity for correct selection.

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%: both 'id' and 'include_market_values' are documented with descriptions. The tool description reinforces the id source and default market value behavior but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns a public FotMob player profile and enumerates the content (current team, injuries, recent matches, career history, trophies, market values). It distinguishes from the search tool by pointing to /fotmob/search for IDs and hints at deeper statistics tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like fotmob_player_stats.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Discover player ids through /fotmob/search') and implies this profile is the entry point for deeper statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling stats/match tools or when not to use it. The guidance is largely implied.

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