sportsdb_search_player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and external-call profile is fully covered. The description adds only the data-source name (TheSportsDB) and name-based lookup; it says nothing about match semantics (exact vs substring), result caps, or pagination, so with annotations carrying the load this lands at minimum-viable.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. It is short but slightly under-specified rather than bloated, which is the more forgivable failure for a simple tool.

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?

For a single-parameter, fully-documented search with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is adequate. The remaining gap is search behavior (fuzzy vs exact match, result limits), which an agent calling this would want to know but is not stated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'player' parameter is documented as 'Player name to search for.' The description's 'by name' restates the schema without adding format or matching details, so the schema does the real work and baseline 3 applies.

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 (sports player by name) against a named source (TheSportsDB). This is clear enough that an agent distinguishes it from sportsdb_search_team or sportsdb_leagues, though the description does not explicitly contrast those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. The agent must infer that a caller wanting team info should use sportsdb_search_team instead.

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