get_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose operational behavior. It states the tool returns a profile with bio, stats, and ratings, implying a read operation, but does not mention error handling, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. Since the description only describes the output content, not the behavioral nuances, it falls short for full transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool returns. It is appropriately concise and well-structured with no fluff.

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 description lists key output elements (bio, stats, recent performance) which gives some contextasi si. However, it lacks details on error handling, edge cases, or any prerequisites. For a simple get tool, it is mostly adequate, but not exhaustive. Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields.

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 has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter (playerId) with a basic description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('a player's profile'), and the specific contents (bio, stats, recent performance ratings). This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_team or get_league, which target different entities.

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 the tool is for retrieving player profiles, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like search or get_team. It doesn't say when to prefer this over a broader search. However, for a simple resource getter, the context is fairly clear.

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