Search players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: case-insensitive substring matching, ESPN-specific id semantics, and the inclusion of negative D/ST ids.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds important id-format detail. 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It adequately explains the search scope and id semantics. A slight gap is that it does not explicitly guide the agent to choose this over get_free_agents or get_roster, but the cross-cutting phrasing makes the distinction inferable.

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. It clarifies that the query parameter is a case-insensitive name substring, which is valuable. However, the limit parameter is not described at all; its meaning is left to inference from the parameter name and schema defaults, providing only partial compensation.

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 names a specific action ('Look up'), a specific resource (ESPN player ids and fantasy team ownership), and a precise search method (case-insensitive name substring). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating the search spans rosters, free agents, and waivers, making it the cross-cutting search tool.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to find players across rosters, free agents, or waivers by name substring. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the cross-cutting scope is sufficiently clear versus roster-specific or free-agent-specific siblings.

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