nhl_player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and details the exact return object, including nested structures like draftDetails and careerTotals, which provide concrete behavioral expectations for a read-only endpoint.

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-structured: a one-line purpose, a return-format block, an example, and an auth note. It's slightly verbose due to the full return object listing, but each section is distinct and serves a purpose.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and providing an example. It covers purpose, parameter origin, example usage, and auth, making it complete for a simple read-only player lookup.

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 explains playerId with a 100% coverage description, including its source and URL path role. The description adds an example value (8478402 for McDavid) but no new semantic information, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'One player's landing page: bio, draft details, current season splits, career totals and awards,' which clearly identifies the resource (a single player) and the content scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like nhl_roster by emphasizing 'one player' and the landing page aggregation.

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?

It states the playerId comes 'from nhl_roster or a box score,' providing clear context for when to call this tool (after obtaining a player ID). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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