player_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: empty stat categories are omitted from results, and rate stats like completion_pct are included — both shape how an agent should interpret output. It says nothing about volume, ordering, or what happens when a player has no data at all.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the two supporting notes about rate stats and omitted categories. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 values needn't be explained, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is positioning among the five sibling stat tools, which the description never addresses for a tool whose name alone is ambiguous.

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 100%, so every parameter (by, player, seasons, season_type) is already documented in the schema, including enum meanings and the '1999 or later' constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (box-score stats for one player) and enumerates the stat families returned (passing, rushing, receiving, defense, kicking, fantasy), which is concrete and specific. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like situational_stats or leaderboard, so an agent must infer the boundary from names 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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over situational_stats, list_stats, or leaderboard, and no mention of prerequisites or typical call patterns. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name and the stat-family list.

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