laliga_player

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing authentication requirements (works without a key, LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more) and explicitly showing the return structure. Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It could mention error cases or rate limits, but the provided context is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, return value, and auth. There is slight redundancy because the first sentence lists fields that are repeated in the Returns block, but it remains efficient and scannable.

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 single-parameter read-only profile lookup, the description provides a clear return contract and auth notes. Gaps include unspecified error behavior and what exact data 'LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more' refers to, but these are minor for typical agent use. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit Returns field list.

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 fully describes the slug parameter, including where to obtain it and that it's part of the URL path. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond emphasizing 'by SLUG', so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 identifies the tool as fetching a single player profile by slug and lists the specific fields returned (name, birth date, country, team, squad, roles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like laliga_player_stats and laliga_squad, which serve different purposes.

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 used when you have a player slug and need profile information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like laliga_player_stats or laliga_squad. The schema hints at a workflow (slug from laliga_players_stats/laliga_squad), but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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