get_player_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively discloses the output shape, including nested hero data, and implies read-only behavior. However, it leaves minor gaps such as exact-match vs fuzzy search behavior for player_name and error handling when a player is not found. Still, the disclosure is far more detailed than typical.

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?

Although the description is long, it is well-structured with clear sections and every part earns its place: purpose, usage context, return format, and an example. The example brings concrete relevance. No word is wasted on tautology.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return schema in detail, and an example. It differentiates from a large set of siblings and gives a complete picture of a straightforward read-only lookup tool. There is no missing critical context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section: 'player_name: The Dota 2 player name to search for.' This adds meaning beyond the bare string type, though it could specify match behavior (e.g., exact, partial). Sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get complete Dota 2 player profile with overview statistics.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the FIRST tool for player lookups and enumerating exactly what is retrieved (profile, win/loss, top heroes). This contrasts with the many specialized 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'initial player lookups', example user queries, and the directive 'This is the FIRST tool to use when a user mentions a player.' It also references specialized tools afterward, effectively naming the alternative behavior. This is a textbook example of usage differentiation.

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