wta_player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond those: the exact return fields, a concrete example, and the auth requirement. It does not contradict 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 reasonably concise but repeats the field list twice ('{id, ...}' and 'Returns: {id, ...}') which is redundant. The example and auth note are useful, but the duplication could be trimmed.

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 simple single-player lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: return shape, source of the ID, an example, and auth requirements. It does not discuss error cases, but that is not critical for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description of playerId including source and path requirement. The description repeats the source but adds a concrete example value, providing minor extra value beyond the schema.

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 this tool retrieves a single WTA player by ID and lists the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wta_players (plural) by noting the ID comes from those lookups.

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 context on where the playerId comes from (wta_players/wta_rankings) and confirms no authentication is needed. It implies this is the right tool when you already have a player ID, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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