wta_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the exact return structure, the ability to search by name with an example, the pagination parameters implicitly covered, and the note that no authentication is required. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, making the tool's runtime behavior more transparent.

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 well-organized with a clear intro, return structure, example, and auth note. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids fluff. There is minor redundancy in showing the return structure twice (once inside the intro and once in the dedicated 'Returns' line), but this repetition serves both an illustrative and a formal purpose, so it is acceptable.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape including pageInfo and content fields. It covers the search-by-name behavior, an example invocation, and how the result connects to downstream tools. The tool is relatively simple (3 optional parameters, no nested objects), and the description provides enough detail for an agent to invoke it correctly. External factors like error handling are not mentioned but are not essential for this catalogue 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (name, page, pageSize), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example for the name parameter ('Swiatek' → Iga Swiatek) and mentions paging through all, but does not add significant detail about page or pageSize beyond what the schema already states. Thus it offers marginal added value over 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 identifies this as the WTA player catalogue and explains its two main operations: searching by name and paging through all players. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wta_player and wta_player_matches by noting that the player id feeds those tools. While the primary action verb ('list' or 'search') is implicit, the description's scope and resource are unmistakable.

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 concrete usage context: use this tool to search for a player by name or to page through the full catalogue, and the resulting player id can be passed to wta_player or wta_player_matches. It includes an example request and explicitly states no auth is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other listing tools, but the id-feeding guidance is a strong usage pointer.

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