nba_players

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 says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, what fields a player record returns, whether matching is substring or exact, or whether an empty search lists all players. 'Search by name' leaves the operational profile entirely unspecified.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. Front-loaded and clear. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally sound.

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?

A 2-param search tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not compensate for either gap: it explains neither the return shape nor any behavioral constraints. For a tool whose only guidance is one line, the absence of any operational detail is a real shortfall.

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% – both 'search' (player name to search for) and 'limit' (results per page, default 25) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching-mode, or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (NBA players) with the searchable field (name). This clearly distinguishes it from nba_games (game scores) and nba_teams. It doesn't name those siblings, but the resource boundary is self-evident.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no mention that nba_games or nba_teams exist for other NBA data. The agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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