get_player_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must alone disclose behavior. It says nothing about side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. The description is a noun phrase with zero behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads 'Canonical' but omits all practical detail, making it more a placeholder than a useful description.

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?

With no schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain KPR, what stats are included, parameter formatting, or any query context, leaving the agent to guess.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description omits any mention of the parameters sport or player_id. It does not clarify expected formats, meaning of 'KPR', or related stats, adding no value beyond the property names.

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 'Canonical player stats (KPR and related)' is barely more than a restatement of the tool's name, with vague reference to 'player stats' and an unexplained acronym 'KPR'. It does not state the specific resource or distinguish it from siblings like get_player_stats_full or get_player_board.

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 this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Canonical' hints at a standard version but no explicit comparison, condition, or exclusion is given, leaving the agent with no basis for selection.

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