fpl_player_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auth requirements ('works without a key; FPL_SESSION_COOKIE unlocks more'), the meaning of difficulty, and that value represents gameweek-level price. It doesn't cover every edge case but does well given the 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 core purpose, then provides a compactly formatted return structure, field clarifications, an example, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the three return sections and their key fields. It explains the difficulty scale and price semantics, making the tool usable for FPL analysis directly from the description.

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% and already explains playerId source and URL path. The description adds a concrete example (playerId: 1) and reinforces that it refers to a full player record. This exceeds the baseline for a high-coverage 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 states 'One player in full' and enumerates exactly what is returned: every gameweek this season, past seasons, and upcoming fixtures with difficulty. This clearly distinguishes it from list-level tools like fpl_players or simpler per-player tools.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need a comprehensive player record including fixtures and history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping language makes the intended use obvious.

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