list_players

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only listing operation, nor mention any defaults (e.g., default limit), pagination, or response structure. The term 'Browse' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit and no behavioral details are shared.

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 single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (6 optional parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning the response format or typical usage. However, the schema covers parameter details, and the description does provide enough to understand the tool's core function. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps, such as not indicating what information is returned for each player.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking the tool to lineup selection, which hints at why filtering by position or team may be useful, but it does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'Browse' and clearly identifies the resource as 'available football players' with a clear context 'for lineup selection'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player, which would focus on a single player, and list_contests, which lists contests.

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 clear context by stating the tool is for 'lineup selection', which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as when a single player's details are needed (get_player). Thus, it lacks explicit exclusions, meriting a 4 rather than 5.

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