Search players

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and safe behavior. The description adds value by stating the return fields (id, country, ranking, tour) and recommending using the id with get_player, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the result.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It could explicitly state that it searches current players (not archive), but the sibling context and return fields imply this.

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 has 100% coverage, fully documenting both 'query' and 'limit'. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches tennis players by name, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the return fields and links to get_player, distinguishing it from other search tools like search_tournaments or search_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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool to find a player ID, then use that ID with get_player. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined and actionable.

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