wta_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the return structure and source of the input, omitting key details like whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 with two sentences, covering purpose, output fields, and input source. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It defines the output fields and the source of the input. However, it could mention that the metadata field content is undefined.

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 single parameter playerId is self-explanatory as an integer ID. The description adds value by clarifying that the ID comes from wta_players / wta_rankings, which helps agents understand how to obtain valid IDs. Schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter name is obvious.

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 'A single WTA player by id' and lists the output fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wta_players (which lists players) and wta_rankings (which provides rankings) by specifying the unique resource and source of the ID.

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 that playerId comes from wta_players / wta_rankings, providing clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond that source.

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