get_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the resource and ID convention; it does not state whether this is read-only, what profile data is included, or any authentication or side-effect considerations.

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 a single concise sentence with the core resource front-loaded and the ID convention immediately after. It is efficient, though the brevity means some useful context is omitted.

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 a simple lookup, but with no output schema, no annotations, and no differentiation from several similar player-focused tools, the description is too thin to fully support correct selection and usage. The agent still lacks clarity on what the returned profile contains and when this tool should be preferred.

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?

The description adds meaningful detail for player_id by noting the preferred kr_pl_* prefix and nickname fallback, which the schema lacks. However, it gives no explanation for the required sport parameter, and with 0% schema coverage that remains a notable gap.

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 identifies the resource as a 'Player profile' and even gives the ID format, so an agent can infer this is a lookup operation. It does not explicitly use a verb and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_player_stats or research_player, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_player versus the many related player tools. The player_id format note is useful parameter guidance but does not help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice.

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