laliga_players_stats

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

Despite readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Auth: works without a key; LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more if set,' page size cap of 100, and the exact response structure with the stats array. This covers authentication nuances, pagination constraints, and data shape beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-organized with a clear main sentence, a Returns block, an Example block, and an Auth line. It is reasonably concise for the complexity, though the Returns block partially repeats the earlier mention of stats and player attributes. The front-loaded main sentence gives immediate purpose and the example is actionable.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return JSON structure, pagination behavior (limit max 100, offset), and authentication requirements. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional information about response format or behavior.

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?

All three parameters (slug, limit, offset) are already described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces these details by mentioning pagination and providing an example slug value ('laliga-easports-2025'), adding no new semantic meaning 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's function: 'EVERY player in a season (≈749) with full Opta stats[] + position + team + opta_id.' This uses a specific resource and scope, distinguishing it from singular player tools like laliga_player_stats or laliga_player. The inclusion of 'EVERY player' implies a bulk listing operation, making the purpose 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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving all players in a season, with pagination via limit/offset and an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as laliga_player or laliga_squad. The differentiation is implied by 'EVERY' rather than directly stated.

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