afl_players_list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'Auth: none needed' and a concrete return structure. This gives agents confidence about access and expected response shape.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a return format block, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers purpose, return shape, and auth. The '17k+ all-time catalogue' note hints at the need for pagination, and the schema provides the necessary parameters. It lacks explicit mention of ordering or limits, but these are not critical for a basic list 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for 'page' and 'pageSize'. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but does not need to since the schema already documents them fully.

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 'List players', a specific verb with the resource, and adds '17k+ all-time catalogue' to specify scope. This distinguishes it from single-player tools like afl_player_get and mapping tools like afl_players_idmap.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: use this to get a bulk list of players. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like afl_player_get or how to navigate pagination beyond the schema.

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