pl_player_season_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, establishing the safety and openness of the operation. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a return shape, which are useful context, but it does not elaborate on what 'Opta metrics' includes or potential edge cases. This is modest additional value beyond annotations.

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: a one-line purpose, a return type summary, and an auth note. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 all parameters documented in the schema and safety declared through annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, the return shape, and auth requirements. It falls slightly short by not providing any usage guidance or caveats about data availability, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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% description coverage, with each parameter clearly explained (e.g., 'Competition id (8)', 'Player id', 'Season id'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so it does not improve on the baseline established by the schema.

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 resource: 'A player's stats for one season.' This identifies the scope (single season) and the subject (player), which distinguishes it from broader player tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not reference sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to related tools like pl_player_comp_stats or pl_player_info. The agent is left to infer usefulness from the name and brief description.

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