collector_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses preservation of original fields and relative asset paths, single logical GET, no auto-pagination, local array limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields. This is unusually thorough for a one-parameter read endpoint.

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 lead sentence is strong, but the description is redundant: 'One GET' is repeated as 'Makes one logical GET request', and oversized record refusal is stated twice. The sentence about 'Other declared filters' appears to be generic boilerplate because the schema declares only 'player' and no other filters. It could be tightened without losing information.

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 read endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is operationally complete: it covers preservation behavior, pagination, size limits, truncation, and refusal semantics. It leaves the player value format unspecified, but that is more of a parameter-semantics gap than an overall completeness failure.

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 only parameter, 'player', has no schema description and 0% schema coverage. The description only implies the player via 'Read one player' and adds a generic policy note that required inputs 'reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements.' It never states the expected identifier format or meaning, leaving the agent to infer.

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 and resource: 'Read one player collector overview with binder summaries.' It then explicitly scopes the tool with 'One GET, no card metadata fan-out, purchases or layout changes', which distinguishes it from sibling collector/card/market tools. The purpose is clear without relying on the tool name alone.

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 gives a clear usage scenario: reading a single player's collector overview with binder summaries. It also states explicit exclusions such as 'no card metadata fan-out, purchases or layout changes' and 'Does not auto-fetch continuation pages.' It does not name a sibling fallback, so it stops short of directly routing to an alternative tool.

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