apisports_football_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial value beyond these: it specifies the auth requirement (API_SPORTS_KEY), warns that the documented response shape is unverified and approximate, and explains that `statistics` is a list with one entry per competition. This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a detailed return shape, a caveat about unverified vendor documentation, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical caveat is clearly highlighted. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive return shape including paging, a clear explanation of repeated entries, an example, and auth requirements. For a 6-parameter tool, this is more than sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by reinforcing that `season` is required and by presenting a concrete example (team:42, season:2023) that demonstrates how the parameters are used together. This lifts it above baseline but doesn't add deep semantics beyond the schema.

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 provides 'Player season statistics for a team or league,' identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apisports_football_teams (team info) and apisports_football_fixtures (match data) by focusing on player stats. A minor deduction for lacking an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', though the intent is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when player season statistics are needed, filtered by team or league. It explicitly notes that `season` is required and provides a concrete example. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.

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