supercoach_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned fields and states it is a 'thin subset,' implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements, which would be beneficial but not critical for a retrieval tool.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and output fields, then providing usage guidance and an example. No extraneous text.

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?

The description provides the return structure and differentiates from sibling, which is good. However, with no output schema, it fulfills that need. But the lack of parameter explanations leaves gaps, making it adequate but not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'id' via 'by SuperCoach id.' Mode, year, and sport are not described. The example 'AFL player 1' hints at sport and year but is insufficient. This is a significant gap.

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 returns a single player's base record by SuperCoach ID, listing the specific fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool supercoach_players by noting it provides a thin subset, while the sibling is for full data.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool versus supercoach_players, stating 'for the full price/projection/matchup snapshot use supercoach_players with a round.' This provides clear guidance on selection criteria.

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