search_players

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, and the description aligns with these by describing a search operation. The description adds the nuance that it returns candidates with stable IDs and advises selecting an ID before querying a player, which is useful for follow-up. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the added context is modest but sufficient for a search tool.

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 one sentence that front-loads the primary search criteria and adds a note about ID usage. It is concise and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage notes, but it is not overly verbose.

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 tool has 10 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, the description provides enough for basic use but does not explain pagination, default values, or the meaning of context. The annotations clarify safety and idempotency, but the description could have detailed how the search results are ordered and how to refine queries. Overall, it is adequate but has gaps.

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 schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description mentions 'nickname, country, total PP range and PP component sorting' which maps to several parameters (search, country, ppFrom, ppTo, ppType, sort), but it does not explain all 10 parameters such as page, count, order, context, and their interactions. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but is not exhaustive for a tool with this many parameters.

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 searches for public players by nickname, country, and PP range, with sorting on PP components, which are concrete and specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_player or list_player_scores, but the resource and action are clear enough for an agent to infer its role.

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 implies when to use it (to find players by search criteria) and notes that an ID should be selected before querying a player, which indicates a follow-up step. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_maps or get_player, but the context is reasonably clear.

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