compare_players

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the tool returns a canonical URL and lists the comparison fields. It could mention idempotency or potential restrictions, but the behavior is clearly non-destructive and well explained.

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 concise sentences. First covers purpose and content, second provides guidance and return value. Every sentence is necessary, no redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers the key return aspects (comparison fields, canonical URL). It identifies the specific league and year, which is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's scope.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'slugs' are player identifiers and directs to search_players for resolution. This adds context beyond the schema's raw type definition.

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 clearly states the verb 'comparison' and the resource 'IPL 2026 players', specifying the exact fields compared (team, role, claim count per pillar, headline claim). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_player_profile' by focusing on side-by-side comparisons of multiple players.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for comparing 2-8 IPL 2026 players. Provides a prerequisite: 'Use search_players to resolve slugs first.' This guides the agent to the appropriate sibling tool and prevents misuse.

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