find_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: 'Look up' signals a read-only operation, and it explicitly discloses that full or partial names are accepted and that the response includes the player_id plus any other name matches. It does not discuss case sensitivity or empty-result behavior, but these are minor for a simple lookup tool.

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 two compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the return usage immediately after. Every sentence adds information: matching semantics and downstream use.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it states the input semantics, the key output (player_id), and the relationship to player_career_stats. It does not explicitly mention how to handle multiple matches or no matches, but those are minor given the output schema and simple scope.

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 the description must compensate for the bare 'name' parameter. It does so by explaining that the name is an NBA player name and that full or partial values are accepted. It stops short of format constraints such as case sensitivity or minimum length, but the core semantics are clear.

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 action and resource: 'Look up an NBA player by full or partial name.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it returns 'the player_id needed by player_career_stats,' so an agent can tell it apart from find_team and the stats tools without opening 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 makes clear this is the tool for resolving an NBA player name into a player_id and explicitly points to player_career_stats as the downstream consumer. It does not state exclusions or name find_team as the alternative for team lookups, but the routing context is clear enough for typical use.

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