search_t20wc_players

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

With no annotations, the description shoulders the full burden. It discloses substring match, case-insensitivity, editions count, and example slug transformation. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of slugs or full objects), pagination behavior, or what happens on no match, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences with no extraneous content. It starts with purpose, provides context, and ends with usage instruction and exclusion. 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should cover both input and output behavior. It handles input well (case-insensitive substring, editions) but omits output structure (what is returned: slug only? multiple matches? empty result handling). This incomplete coverage lowers the score.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'query' and 'limit'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema (e.g., provides example but does not elaborate on format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it finds player slugs for ICC Men's T20 World Cup by substring match, with a specific example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_wpl_players and search_players by explicitly noting it is not for WPL players and specifying the tournament scope.

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 tells the agent to use this tool before get_t20wc_player_profile, and explicitly states it is NOT for WPL players. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with implied alternatives for other player searches.

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