apitennis_players

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the return shape is unverified from vendor docs and should be treated as approximate. It also mentions the need for an API key in API_TENNIS_KEY. These caveats help set expectations for reliability. The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then includes the return shape, an important caveat, an example, and auth instructions. The return shape is lengthy but necessary because there is no output schema. No words are wasted, and the structure is logical.

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 single-player lookup with two parameters, the description covers the key aspects: return shape, example usage, auth requirements, and a warning about unverified data. Since there is no output schema, including the approximate shape is helpful. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but that is not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters: method 'Leave as-is' and player_key 'Player key (from fixtures or standings).' The description adds an example invocation but no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 'One player's profile and recent results' which identifies both the resource (player) and the scope (single player, profile + results). The example uses method 'get_players' and a player_key, reinforcing the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apitennis_standings or apitennis_h2h.

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 should be used when you need a single player's profile and recent results, and the example clarifies the required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as noting that apitennis_standings would be better for rankings. This is clear context without exclusions.

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