pl_player_comp_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, setting a safe-read baseline. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (player and stats with Opta metrics) and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed.' This goes beyond annotations by giving insight into the response shape, though it does not cover potential rate limits or edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary of purpose, followed by return format and auth info. Every line contributes meaning without redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides a sample return structure, clarifies auth requirements, and states the aggregation scope. No output schema exists, but the informal return signature helps the agent understand the tool's output.

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 100% coverage, with each parameter (cid, pid) described as an integer and part of the URL path. The description itself does not add much parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'A player's career stats aggregated across the competition (all seasons).' This specifies a distinct verb+resource (retrieve career stats) and scope, differentiating it from sibling tools like pl_player_season_stats or pl_player_leaderboard.

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 for when to use this tool: when aggregated career stats across all seasons for a player in a competition are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'all seasons' aggregation and the need for cid/pid make the intended use unambiguous.

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