player_recent_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several important behaviors: the tool never accepts a decryption key, makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits arrays to 100 rows/256 KiB, and refuses oversized records. This is valuable, but it omits details such as caching, rate limits, or what 'truncation reported' means exactly in the response. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 solid paragraph of six sentences, each providing unique information. It front-loads the core purpose ('Read the public recent team compositions') and then covers security, request behavior, and limits. No fluff, but it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing like 'as supplied' and 'their effectiveness is not implied'.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behaviors: public data, no decryption key, single GET, no pagination, response limits, and truncation handling. It does not mention the exact response format (e.g., JSON structure) but that is not required given no output schema. It is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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. It explains that the 'decrypt_key' parameter is not exposed, clarifies that required inputs reflect tool policy and upstream requirements, and notes that other filters are forwarded but effectiveness is not implied. However, it does not explain the 'format' parameter or provide details on the 'player' parameter beyond the schema's minLength. Still, the description adds significant context beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public recent team compositions for one player'), which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like player_inventory. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, and the phrase 'recent team compositions' could benefit from more specificity.

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 provides some context (public data, one player, required 'player' parameter) but does not explain when to use this tool versus other player-related tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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