get_player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the ambiguity-resolution behavior for usernames and the explicit exclusion of private inventory, balance, and session-only data, which tells the agent what it will not get back.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the identifier guidance and the exclusion note. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it returns, how to identify the player, what is omitted).

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 correctly states the return scope and its exclusions, and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what happens when no identifier is supplied despite zero required parameters, and the fields projection is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the 'prefer this over a name' note on user_id that the description largely repeats. The only semantic addition is the disambiguation behavior for username, which is behavioral rather than parameter-level, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a player's public profile and selected public stats') and scopes it with a negative statement about private inventory, balance, and session-only data. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary against get_player_companies on its own, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear operative guidance: prefer the WarEra user ID when available, and expect username resolution to require an exact, unambiguous match with a disambiguation follow-up otherwise. It stops short of stating when to reach for this tool versus search_events or the overview tools, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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