search_players

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: case-insensitive and substring-based matching, season restriction, and limit default. It also notes the output is a canonical person_code. It doesn't mention empty-result behavior, but output schema covers return structure, making this acceptable.

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 tightly written with three clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, including concrete examples ('doncic', 'Luka') that clarify matching behavior without unnecessary length.

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 tool is a simple lookup with three parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, parameter meanings, and key matching behavior. Since output schema exists, explaining return structure is unnecessary, so the description is complete for this context.

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 provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: name is 'any part of the player's name', season has an example format, and limit states its default. This fully compensates for the sparse 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 finds a player's canonical person_code from a partial or misspelled name. It distinguishes itself from other player tools by emphasizing that every other tool requires a person_code, not a name, making the unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST whenever the user names a player' and explains that all other player tools take a person_code, not a name. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with alternative tools like get_player_stats.

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