get_t20wc_player_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (Men's T20 WC only) and what data is returned (batting/bowling aggregates, per-edition, phase splits). While it doesn't mention read-only or auth requirements, the context implies a safe retrieval operation. The description adds value beyond annotations (which are absent).

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 explains what the tool returns, the second provides parameter format and usage guidance. No redundant information; 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and scope restrictions. Minor omission: no mention of error behavior for invalid slugs, but not critical for completeness.

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?

The only parameter (playerSlug) has schema description 'Kebab-case T20 WC player slug e.g. v-kohli'. The description reinforces this format and adds the suggestion to use search_t20wc_players first. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the added usage advice justifies a 4.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a player's ICC Men's T20 World Cup career profile, including batting and bowling aggregates, per-edition breakdown, and phase splits. It specifies the resource (player profile), scope (T20 WC), and differentiates from sibling tools like get_player_profile or get_wpl_player_profile.

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 instructs to use a kebab-case slug (e.g., 'v-kohli'), recommends using search_t20wc_players first if the slug is unknown, and warns against mixing with WPL. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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