pl_player_basic

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds value by stating that no authentication is required and by explicitly listing the response fields. It does not cover error behavior or data freshness, but these are less critical given the annotations and simple nature of the tool.

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: two short sections covering what the profile includes, the exact return shape, and auth requirements. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler. It is front-loaded with the tool's 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the returned object structure and authentication requirements. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description gives an agent enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to infer hidden 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?

The single parameter 'pid' is fully documented in the input schema with type, origin (pl_players), an example, and the fact that it is part of the URL path. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Lightweight player profile' and specifies the fields it returns (name, position, country, currentTeam). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' but the intent is unambiguous. The word 'Lightweight' subtly distinguishes it from fuller player profile tools, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 the tool is for basic profile lookups and states that no auth is needed, which is useful context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pl_player or pl_player_info. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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