list_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. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (reference resource), filtering, and pagination behavior. It does not cover rate limits or authorization, but the basic behavior is transparent.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates purpose, filtering, output usage, and pagination.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and pagination. It could mention the response format or default behavior without filters, but it is otherwise complete for a simple list tool.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds value by explaining that the tool returns player UUIDs for use with other tools, and that pagination is via cursor. It also contextualizes the filter parameters as optional and combinable.

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 'List' and resource 'players', and specifies it's a reference resource for obtaining player UUIDs to use with get_player_odds and get_player_stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return odds, stats, or other data.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to filter players by league/team and get UUIDs for other player-related tools. It mentions pagination via cursor. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies its specific role.

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