Player detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: fetches current state and changes nothing.' It goes beyond the annotation by detailing what data is returned (history, record, averages, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions; it accurately reflects the tool's non-mutating nature.

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-organized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a paragraph listing key data fields, then status/availability, and finally the read-only guarantee. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. The use of backticks for field names aids readability.

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 has an output schema (present but not shown), so the description need not detail every return field, but it lists the most important ones (history, record, averages, fixtures, buyout_clause, status_meaning, available). It also covers read-only behavior and ID sourcing. For a single-parameter getter, this is complete enough; it doesn't mention error cases, but that's acceptable given the schema and read-only nature.

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. It does by stating 'Ids come from get_squad, get_market or get_offers,' which tells the agent exactly where to obtain the player_id. While it doesn't explicitly define player_id, the source hint is valuable and beyond the schema's bare integer type. It's sufficient for a single obvious parameter.

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 clear, specific action: 'Get everything Comunio knows about one player.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it provides more than the squad's price/availability, and by listing the additional data fields (history, record, averages, fixtures, buyout clause). This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately obvious.

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 where player IDs come from ('get_squad, get_market or get_offers'), which implies these tools should be used first. It also contrasts with get_squad by saying 'Beyond the price and availability the squad already gives,' suggesting get_player is for deeper data. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when only basic info is needed), so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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