search_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states case-insensitive substring matching and the fields returned, but does not mention behavior on empty results, pagination, or rate limits. It adequately covers the read-like nature of the operation.

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 two sentences with zero waste. Every word adds value: it specifies the league, the search criteria, case-insensitivity, the returned fields, and usage guidance.

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 and the presence of sibling tools, the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose, parameters, and return fields. It could mention behavior on no matching results, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the 'substring match' is already in the query parameter description, and the limit parameter's default and max are in the schema. No extra value is provided.

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's function: finding IPL 2026 player slugs by substring match against name, slug, or team. It specifies the league (IPL 2026) and the returned fields (slug, fullName, team, role), distinguishing it from sibling tools for other leagues.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before get_player_profile when only a name is known, providing clear contextual guidance. It implicitly suggests not using it when a slug is already known, but does not exclude other use cases.

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