List / browse players

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details: up to 25 players per call, pagination with start parameter, default sort by 'AR', and that no stats are returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second sentence provides usage guidance and key parameter context. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned (name, position, etc.) and how pagination works. It could explicitly mention that the return format is a list of player objects, but the description is still clear enough.

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description further clarifies the sort parameter (stat id or AR/OR/PTS) and pagination behavior (up to 25, start offset). This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states it lists league players including free agents in ranked order with specific fields like name, position, eligibility, status, and ownership. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_player_stats and rank_players by specifying what it does NOT include (stats).

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 explicit usage guidance: it is the light way to scan waiver/free-agent targets, and after identifying candidates, users should switch to analyze_player_stats or rank_players for stats. This clearly tells when to use the tool and when to use alternatives.

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