search_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does add meaningful behavior: it reveals the return format ('kr_pl_* ids') and the limit semantics (default 25, max 200). It could disclose more, such as match behavior or error cases, but for a simple search tool it provides valuable, non-obvious behavioral detail beyond the bare schema.

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 earning its place: the main purpose, the return format, and a parameter constraint. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults beyond what is useful.

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 simple search tool, the description covers purpose, return shape, and limit behavior. But it leaves the required sport parameter unexplained and does not describe the result structure beyond the ID prefix, which is significant since there is no output schema. The agent can likely invoke the tool, but it must guess about sport values and the exact response shape.

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 explains q as a nickname and gives limit's default and maximum, which adds value over the bare schema. However, it omits the required 'sport' parameter entirely, leaving the agent without guidance on what values are accepted (sport name, slug, code) or how it constrains the search.

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 phrase 'Find a player by nickname' names a specific verb, a clear resource, and a distinct search criterion. It also differentiates this tool from siblings like get_player and get_player_snapshot, which are retrieval-by-ID tools, and signals the returned ID namespace with 'Returns kr_pl_* ids'.

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 implies the primary usage: search when you have a nickname and need a player ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_player, whether to use search_matches for match lookup, or what to do with the returned IDs. The 'by nickname' phrasing gives only implied context, not explicit routing guidance.

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