research_player

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole behavioral source. It discloses a valuable edge case — empty tape returns 200, not 404 — which prevents misinterpretation of empty results. It does not mention auth, data recency, or side effects, though the read-only nature is implied.

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?

Three short sentences each carry distinct information: purpose, player identifier format, and the empty-tape behavior. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not describe the structure of a career tape, the effect of `recent`, or valid values for `sport` and `market`, leaving an agent to guess important call details.

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, but it only documents the `player` parameter (kr_pl_*, slug, nickname). It leaves `sport`, `market`, and `recent` unexplained, and the market mention in the purpose line does not clarify its format or allowed values.

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 names a specific resource, 'Career tape', and scopes it to one player and market, which clearly conveys the core function. It implicitly distinguishes this from board-level siblings like research_board_tapes, but it uses no explicit verb and never names alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 choose this tool over research_board_tapes, get_player_stats_full, or get_player. The only usage hint is the parameter-level note about player identifiers, which is not tool-selection guidance.

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