pl_player_comp_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns player and stats, implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. It is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 a single sentence with a return format, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from structured parameter explanations, but it is not overly verbose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a domain with many similar tools, the description provides the core functionality but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and potential edge cases. It is minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'across the competition' which hints that 'cid' is a competition ID, but does not define 'pid' or explain parameter formats or constraints. Adds partial meaning but not enough for full parameter understanding.

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 that the tool returns a player's career stats aggregated across all seasons for a competition. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pl_player_season_stats (per season) and pl_player_basic (basic info). The verb 'aggregates' and resource 'career stats' are specific and unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for career stats across a competition, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparison to siblings or exclusion criteria are provided.

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