get_player

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 discloses that it returns the current record (not historical), lists the contained fields, and explicitly states the null-return behavior when no player matches the id. This is strong for a simple read-only lookup, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, which are likely not applicable.

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 just two sentences: the first concisely states the purpose and fields, the second covers the null case. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter design, the presence of an output schema, and sibling context, the description is quite complete. It explains the scope ('current'), the fields, and the not-found behavior. It relies on the output schema for exact return formatting, which is appropriate. It never mentions alternatives, but that's more of a usage-guideline gap.

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 only defines player_id as an integer with no description. The description clarifies that this is the unique identifier for the player and that an unknown id yields null, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb phrase 'Full current record for one player by id' and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, age, position, club, league, Elo, EAR). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_players (search by query), list_top_players (list), and get_player_history (historical data).

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: use this when you have a player_id and need their current full record. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives like search_players for finding an ID first. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools.

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