pl_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only describes the return structure; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 with two sentences, no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly better structured by explicitly stating the action and required parameters upfront.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: allowed types and return format. It lacks explicit mention of the action (e.g., 'get') and does not clarify 'mid' as entity ID, but overall adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description partially compensates by specifying the allowed values for 'type' (SDP_FOOTBALL_PLAYER, SDP_FOOTBALL_TEAM). The 'mid' parameter's meaning is implied but not explained, reducing the score from 5.

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 retrieves generic entity metadata, specifically external/fantasy profile links for football players and teams. It mentions the two allowed types (SDP_FOOTBALL_PLAYER, SDP_FOOTBALL_TEAM). However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling PL tools (e.g., pl_player, pl_team), explicit context on distinguishing use cases is absent.

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