Player card

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that name-based lookup can fail and prescribing a fallback workflow, plus noting the exact-name constraint.

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: the first names the action and return content, the second gives the exact-name requirement and fallback rule. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple read-only lookup with fully documented optional parameters and clear fallback guidance, the description is sufficient. Minor gaps are the lack of an output schema and no explicit statement about what happens if neither name nor playerId is provided.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the name format and suggests playerId as the fallback key, but it does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Look up'), a single resource ('a single player'), and enumerates the data returned: position, pro team, ownership/start percentages, injury status, and scoring. This clearly distinguishes get_player_info from roster and free-agent sibling tools.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule ('Use the exact full name') and a concrete failure path: if lookup fails, use get_free_agents or get_roster and pass the returned player_id. This is direct guidance on when and how to switch to alternatives.

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