pl_players

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying pagination, the exact return shape ({pagination, data:[...]}), and the lack of authentication requirements. No contradictions with 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 succinct and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose, a return format, a practical example, and an auth note. Every line serves a clear function, with no redundant wording or unnecessary 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by revealing the return structure and providing a concrete invocation example. Combined with a fully described input schema, the agent has sufficient context to select and call the tool correctly, including pagination awareness.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds a concrete example using cid, sid, and limit, which reinforces schema semantics but does not introduce new meaning or clarify aspects not already in 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 identifies the tool as a player directory for a season, with the 'Players index page' phrase adding specificity. It distinctively positions it against sibling tools like pl_players_by_id or pl_squad by implying a listing context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied through the descriptor and example (listing players for a given season), but the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other player-related tools like pl_players_by_id or pl_squad. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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