pl_metadata

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that no authentication is needed and specifies the return structure, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 extremely concise, with three short sentences covering purpose, return format, and authentication. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary prose.

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?

The description adequately covers return format and auth, which is important since there is no output schema. However, the term 'generic entity metadata' is vague and the return structure uses an ellipsis, leaving some ambiguity about the full contents. For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient but lacks exhaustive detail.

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 fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of type constraints simply reiterates the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided 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 retrieves entity metadata for football players and teams, explicitly listing the accepted types (SDP_FOOTBALL_PLAYER, SDP_FOOTBALL_TEAM) and the return content (external/fantasy profile links). This gives a specific verb+resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling pl_* tools beyond the 'generic' qualifier.

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 usage for fetching generic entity metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pl_player or pl_team. There is no 'use this when' or exclusion guidance, so usage is only implied from the context.

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