pl_player

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape, including a top-level array with one entry per spell. This gives agents actionable behavioral knowledge.

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 and well-structured: a purpose line, a return format line, and an auth line. All information is front-loaded with no unnecessary fluff.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, it explains output shape and auth sufficiently. Minor deduction: the first sentence mentions fields like weight, shirtNum, and preferredFoot that do not appear in the return example, creating slight ambiguity.

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 pid ('Player id. Required — part of the URL path') with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Full player career' and specifies the granularity as 'one entry per club/season spell', listing key fields like height/weight, shirtNum, preferredFoot, and position. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as pl_player_basic or pl_player_info.

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—it is for full career history with per-spell entries—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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