nhl: Get player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered without description help. The description's enumeration of returned data categories is the main added value, but it says nothing about behavior on an invalid player_id or what the fields parameter filters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the payload. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With annotations covering safety and full schema coverage on both parameters, the remaining burden is return-shape disclosure, which the description partially meets by listing the stat categories. A note on how the fields projection interacts with those categories would close the gap.

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%: player_id documents the NHL ID with an example (8478402 for Connor McDavid) and fields documents comma-separated keys. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (NHL player) and enumerates the payload (bio, career stats, current season stats, awards), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of differentiating itself from the very similar sibling nhl_get_player_game_log, which is the one place confusion is plausible.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement at all. With a near-twin sibling (nhl_get_player_game_log) in the toolset, the definition gives the agent no basis for choosing between a full player profile and a game log.

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