get_player

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

There are no annotations to indicate side effects or safety. The description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no modifications, nor does it disclose any potential limitations or errors. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency and falls short.

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 two sentences, concise and directly to the point. It efficiently conveys the output content and the search options without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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?

The description provides adequate detail on what is returned and how to search. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether at least one parameter must be provided, what happens if both are given, or behavior when neither is supplied. These gaps make it incomplete for fully guiding an agent in some edge cases.

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 description adds meaningful semantics to both parameters: 'name' is explicitly described as a partial match, and 'player_id' is described as exact. This clarifies the expected input format and behavior beyond the raw schema types, covering all parameters present in 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 the tool's purpose: retrieving full detail on one player, listing the specific attributes (projection, VORP, tier, ADP, injury status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a single player and mentions the search methods.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for single-player lookups while other tools handle lists, rosters, or draft context. The 'when to use' information is only implicitly conveyed through the tool name and sibling names.

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