afl_players_idmap

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's additional details—payload size (~98 KB), auth requirement (none), and the exact return structure—are valuable. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate a potentially large response.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise Returns and Auth lines. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary detail, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, scale, return format, and auth. It is nearly complete, though it could mention whether the map is exhaustive or if there are any caveats about coverage of historical players. The 'every player' wording implies completeness, so this is a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds meaning by specifying the output shape (`{entityType:'player', idMapResponse:{ids:{...}}}`), which is useful for parsing the response, even though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 maps every player providerId (CD_I*) to its integer id, using a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('every player providerId'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like afl_players_list or afl_player_get, which likely provide player details rather than an ID mapping. The scale (~98 KB, 17k+) also adds precise context.

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 the tool is for translating CD_I* provider IDs to integer IDs, which is clear from the context of sibling idmap tools (afl_teams_idmap, afl_matches_idmap). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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