laliga_player_stats

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the exact return JSON structure and authentication behavior (works without a key; LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose, then the return format, then auth details. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, expected output structure, and authorization context. It does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named tools like laliga_players_stats, but the singular scope is clear. It could mention error behavior for invalid slugs, but this is not critical given the 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 fully documents the single required 'slug' parameter with 100% coverage, including that it is part of the URL path. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description, so the 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 the tool returns 'One player's Opta stats' identified by slug. It distinguishes from sibling tools like laliga_players_stats (plural) by emphasizing singular usage, and the inclusion of the return structure (player_stats with id, name, slug, opta_id, team, stats) reinforces the resource being retrieved.

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 this tool is for retrieving stats for a single player via slug, and notes the slug requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of similar siblings like laliga_players_stats or laliga_player, nor does it provide alternative guidance or exclusions.

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