supercoach_player

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return shape and the fact that it is a subset, plus the useful note about no auth required. No contradictions, and it does not need to repeat safety traits already conveyed.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, return shape, example, and auth note. Every sentence contributes and there is no repetition of schema fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 single-record fetch with four well-documented params and no output schema, the description provides the return shape, an example, a clear differentiation from the richer sibling, and auth expectations. This is complete for an agent to 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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It provides an example that shows parameter values, but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 retrieves a single player's base record by SuperCoach id, enumerates the exact fields returned, and explicitly contrasts itself with the richer supercoach_players endpoint. This specific verb+resource+scope fully distinguishes it from sibling 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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: use this for a thin base record, and use supercoach_players with a round for full price/projection/matchup data. It also provides a concrete example with sport 'afl', year 2026, and id 1, and notes auth is not needed.

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