get_player

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the response includes sources, context, data, and section availability, and it specifies that accuracy uses percentages and times use ISO 8601. This helps the agent interpret results.

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?

Three concise sentences, each carrying distinct information: identification, optional sections, and return format. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: how to identify the player, what optional sections exist, and what shape the response takes. The context parameter's meaning is left implicit, but the enum values are self-descriptive enough 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 description coverage is 67%; player and include are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning to include by listing selectable sections and the basic-profile default, but it does not explain the context parameter beyond the schema's enum/default. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a public player profile by ID, alias, or profile URL.' It clearly identifies the lookup scope and the supported identifiers, and it is distinct from sibling tools like search_players or list_player_scores.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you need a public player profile by known identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the direct lookup intent is obvious and distinguishable from search/analysis siblings.

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