pl_player_info

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and idempotent. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and explicitly lists the returned fields. It adds useful context without contradicting the annotations, though it doesn't mention potential edge cases or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main purpose is first, followed by return structure and auth note. Every word contributes useful information.

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 straightforward read-only endpoint with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it states scope, lists all returned fields, and confirms auth requirements. It gives enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, including examples for sid and cid. The description's 'scoped to a season' reinforces the sid parameter's meaning but adds no new parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Player bio scoped to a season — team/shirt/dates as they were that season.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like pl_player or pl_player_basic, which lack the seasonal scoping.

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 clearly sets the context: this tool is for season-specific player bio data. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'when not to use,' the scoping phrase provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate, differentiating it from season-agnostic player endpoints.

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