Teams Get Player Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds only the per-sport metric scope; it says nothing about response size, pagination, or handling of missing players, which would be useful for a boxscore extraction tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence with the sport-specific examples deliberately bracketed at the end. The parenthetical list is long but carries real information about return content rather than 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?

For a read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data comes back, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It still omits how the sport/league identifiers must be formatted and gives no sense of return shape, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 0% and none of the three required parameters (sport, league, event_id) is documented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies accepted sport values via examples (MLB, NBA/WNBA, NFL/NCAAF, Soccer/NHL) and says nothing about league or event_id formats, leaving the caller to guess.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Extract detailed individual player boxscores and performance metrics') and scopes it to a single game, which separates it from aggregate siblings like teams_get_team_statistics. It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from teams_get_athlete_stats or teams_get_athlete_gamelog on its own.

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 statement of when to choose this over games_get_game_summary, teams_get_athlete_stats, or teams_get_athlete_gamelog, all of which overlap. The per-sport metric examples hint at the content returned, but that is data description rather than usage guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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