get_players

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral details beyond that: season_year is ignored, there is a default to the most recent completed season with a caveat about transfer windows, and limit has a max of 500. These insights are not derivable from annotations or schema and help the agent anticipate response behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then enriches with data quality details, adds a season-caveat note, and ends with a clear Args section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 (two optional params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, data source, key behavioral caveats, and parameter semantics. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explicitly states that season_year is ignored and reserved for future use, and that limit has a default of 50 and a maximum of 500, explaining the parameter semantics that the schema (types and defaults) does not convey.

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 'Get Premier League player registrations from the Pulselive/Opta feed,' specifying the verb, resource, and data source. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_roster by emphasizing the richer data (Opta player id, detailed positional labels, loan flag, etc.), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides useful context: it defaults to the most recent completed season, warns that the current season may be incomplete until the transfer window closes, and notes that season_year is currently ignored. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_roster beyond a general comparison, nor does it state when not to use this tool in favor of another.

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