get_player

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It reveals that summary['rated_periods'] caps at 30, summary lags one week behind matches, empty best_wins means no notable wins, and explains walkover and unparsed result conventions. This is rich, actionable behavioral context far beyond a simple return-value list.

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 long but every paragraph earns its place by covering a distinct data quirk or edge case. It is front-loaded with a clear summary of the return payload and then layers caveats logically. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is appropriately sized for the complexity it documents.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates the returned sections, explains historical depth, corrects a common misinterpretation of rated_periods, and defines special result values. An agent can invoke the tool and interpret almost any response correctly based on this text alone; only the source of player_id is missing.

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 was expected to compensate, but it never mentions player_id: its format, where it comes from, or how it relates to search_players. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but no additional meaning is added beyond the schema's 'Player Id'.

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 opens with 'Возвращает профиль игрока: сводку, периоды рейтинга, турниры и все матчи', which names a specific verb, resource, and the exact contents returned. It is clear and not tautological, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_players or get_head_to_head, so it stops 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are stated, such as 'use search_players to find the ID first'. It focuses entirely on interpreting the response rather than selecting the tool, leaving usage context to inference.

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