supercoach_players

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the large payload size (~1–3 MB), the closed embed set (anything else is ignored), the guidance to use ppts1 over ppts (with fallback behavior), and the draft-mode additions. No contradiction 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 long but every sentence adds value: overview, size warning, usage guidance, return shape, field guidance, draft mode, example, and auth. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical information, making it appropriately dense for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and large response, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers size, embed constraints, ppts1/ppts semantics, year edge cases, round requirements, draft mode, and gives a concrete example. The lack of an output schema is fully compensated.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description adds significant meaning: round is 'REQUIRED in practice' despite a default, year is not always the calendar year (with fallback instructions), the embed closed set is explicitly listed, and mode=draft adds fields. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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 opens with 'THE feed' and explicitly states the tool returns 'every player's full snapshot for one round' with a detailed list of fields. It is a specific verb ('feed') + resource ('players') + scope ('one round'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like supercoach_player (single player) by covering all players.

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 provides clear usage scenarios: passing `round` for a forward snapshot, looping rounds with `embed=player_match_stats` for a historical series, and notes the closed embed set. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strongly implied.

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