Archive player bios

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds value by explaining that IDs are corpus person IDs not roster IDs, and enumerates the returned fields. It could further elaborate on open-world behavior, but annotations mitigate that need.

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 sentences, all informative: the first describes the data scope and fields, the second clarifies ID semantics and provides an alternative, and the third gives the plan requirement. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers the historical scope, ID distinction, alternative tool, and plan requirement, making it complete for a search tool with this simplicity. The sibling distinction is especially useful in a large toolset.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the query, tour, or limit parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does clarify the context of how the query maps to archive player identities.

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 identifies the resource (people in the results archive 1968–2022) and specifies the exact return fields (hand, date of birth, country, height, career-high rank). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_players by noting the id type and scoping to archive players.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'for current players use search_players'. It also discloses the plan requirement ('Requires the BASIC plan or any History plan'), giving clear prerequisites and context for invocation.

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