pl_players_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral transparency burden by specifying the return format. However, it does not disclose input limits, error handling, permission requirements, or whether missing IDs cause failures, leaving the agent underinformed.

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: one sentence for purpose and one for return value. No filler words, and the structure is clear. Every sentence provides value.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameter type, and return format. However, missing details about ID format, error handling, and size limits make it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description specifies that the 'id' parameter is a list of player IDs, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic array type. Given 0% schema coverage, it compensates partially, but lacks details on ID format, valid range, size limits, or empty array handling.

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 it performs a batch player lookup by a list of ids, with a specific use case of hydrating lineups or squads. This differentiates it from single-player lookup tools like pl_player, but does not explicitly contrast with pl_players or other batch tools.

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 mentions a specific use case ('hydrates lineups/squads'), which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit instructions on when not to use it or alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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