Compare Players

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses name-vs-ID matching behavior, unresolved-name handling with candidate IDs, the default week behavior, and the full row structure. It does not discuss potential errors, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, but it is substantially transparent for a comparison tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, input semantics, unresolved behavior, default week, and output row structure. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and no filler or repetition is present.

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 moderate complexity, two parameters, and an output schema, the description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers input formats, defaults, edge-case handling, and return layout; nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 fully compensate. It explains that players may be names or player_ids, that IDs are precise, that names are matched against ESPN's active-player index, and how unresolved names behave. It also explains the week parameter's default and how to use it for future weeks, adding rich meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare 2-6 players side by side for "X or Y?" decisions.' This clearly differentiates the tool from single-player siblings like get_player and projection-focused tools, and the scope (2-6 players) is explicit.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: comparing players for roster decisions, including planning ahead by passing next week's number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide, but the intended use case is unmistakable.

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