get_player_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: returns one row per season, season omission yields career view, and rate stats are identical across per_mode values. This gives the agent important operational expectations. It could add error handling or auth notes, but for a stats read tool these are less critical.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by concise usage notes and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. It is compact yet information-dense.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return format), the description provides essential usage context: data granularity, parameter combinations, and rate-stat behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool for a player-stats query.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with concrete examples: person_code ('006590'), season format ('E2025'), and per_mode enumerated values with a behavioral note about rate stats. This is more informative than the schema itself.

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+resource: 'Season stats for one player'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by emphasizing 'one player' vs team stats, and lists specific stats (traditional totals, true shooting, eFG, usage). This unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires a person_code from search_players' and gives usage guidance for the optional season (omit for career view) and per_mode values. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it versus alternative tools, but the 'one player' scope implies differentiation from team-level tools, offering clear context.

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