Player profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait by noting 'cached stats,' which alerts the agent that the data may be cached and not real-time. This goes beyond what annotations state, providing useful context for freshness expectations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One player's profile') and then lists key attributes. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), has a full output schema, and clear annotations. The description covers what the tool returns at a high level, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope. Missing usage guidance is a separate dimension (scored low), but overall completeness relative to complexity is high.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, and the player_id description 'Player id, as returned by search_players' adds practical guidance on where to obtain the id. The tool description itself does not add further parameter detail, but the schema is already sufficient, meeting the baseline for schema_description_coverage > 80%.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving a single player's profile, with a specific list of attributes (ranking, country, handedness, date of birth, cached stats). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_players or get_archive_career, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage when a player's profile is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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