get_partnerships

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions returning snapshot data or redirecting to a canonical page for full view. This discloses potential incompleteness and redirection behavior, but 'redirects' is vague (HTTP redirect? JSON link?). More detail on response format or side effects is missing.

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?

The description is a single sentence with two clauses, front-loading the purpose. It is reasonably concise but uses a dash that could be replaced with a period for clearer structure. No extraneous 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core intent and fallback behavior. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., what fields are returned) and does not clarify that it is IPL 2026-specific (other seasons excluded). Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter (playerSlug) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds context that the player is from IPL 2026 but does not explain what a slug is or provide format examples. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the 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 clearly states the tool provides partnership stats for an IPL 2026 player, listing specific metrics (top stand partners, average runs, most productive wicket-stand). It also mentions a fallback redirect, which adds clarity. Among many player-focused sibling tools, this one distinctly targets partnership data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_player_profile. The description implies it's a summary/snapshot tool but does not help an agent decide between this and similar sibling tools.

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