get_player_awards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, error behavior, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The output schema may cover return values, but the description should provide more context for safety.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and parameter hint without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on the scope of awards, ordering, or typical usage patterns, making it minimally adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that 'player' can be a name or ID, which goes beyond the schema's type string. This helps the agent understand acceptable input formats.

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 states 'Player awards/accolades', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_player_info and get_player_stats, but could be more specific about the scope (e.g., career vs. season awards) compared to get_season_awards.

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 mentions 'Accepts player name or ID', providing a hint for the parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_season_awards, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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