player_news

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 does disclose that this is reportage (read-only news text) and explains where the reasoning lives ('did not participate' vs 'limited in practice'). It does not cover freshness window, source, or ordering, though the output schema exists and can carry return structure.

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 core is tight, but the middle sentence is stretched across six lines with indentation and a stylized block about where 'REASONING lives', which is atmospheric rather than operational. Front-loading is fine; the verbosity is not.

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?

Two params, one required, output schema present, so the main gaps are behavioral rather than structural. The description gives the agent enough to call it correctly and understand why the return text matters, but leaves freshness, ordering, and read-only status unstated.

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, and it does: player_name is 'Full or partial name' and limit is 'How many items. Default 4.' Both parameters get meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb (reporting) and a specific resource (recent beat reporting for one NFL player), so an agent can tell it apart from player_outlook, player_signal, or player_history. It does not explicitly name how it differs from those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it — when you want the explanatory text behind an injury tag or practice status — but does not state when-not, nor name an alternative sibling such as player_outlook. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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