get_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The phrase 'Look up' implies a non-destructive read, and the parameter note mentions 'numeric string,' but the description does not disclose not-found behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section adds meaningful parameter detail, though it is slightly redundant in format with the schema.

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?

The tool is simple, has one required parameter, and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, with no annotations, the description does not explain error/not-found behavior or when to prefer this over search_players, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does so by clarifying that player_id is a Sleeper player ID and that it is a numeric string, adding useful meaning beyond the bare schema title.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a single player by Sleeper player ID.' This clearly identifies a single-record lookup, which implicitly differs from search_players. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish the sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Look up a single player by Sleeper player ID,' suggesting this tool is for cases where the ID is already known. It does not explicitly say when to use search_players instead or what to do if only a name is available.

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