search_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it mostly stays on mechanics (filter values) and only hints at behavior with "best first." It does not clarify sorting details (e.g., whether "best" equals sort_by=points), ties, or whether the result is a lightweight summary versus full player objects. That vagueness is acceptable for a read-only query tool but not more.

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 short introductory sentence followed by a compact args list; every line carries information and there is no filler. It is slightly longer than a two-sentence summary would be, but the structured list makes it scan well, and the key purpose phrase is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers all parameters, their allowed values, and units, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It could mention that filters are all optional and that an empty call returns the top players by the default sort, but defaults already appear in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so this description is the only documentation for all six parameters. It explains each one concretely: position values (GKP/DEF/MID/FWD), team name formats with an example (ARS or Arsenal), price units (millions), sort_by choices (points, form, price, ownership, goals, assists), and what limit controls. This fully compensates for the empty 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 opens with a clear verb-and-resource statement, "Find players by filters, best first," and the args list enumerates exactly what filters exist. It reads as a general-purpose search tool, which is distinct from siblings like get_player (single player), compare_players (comparison), and suggest_transfers (recommendations), so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting schemas.

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 (searching/filtering players) but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions or cross-references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer the boundary from the overall tool list. It is adequate but leaves routing to the agent's judgment.

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