get_player_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the Business-tier key requirement, which is valuable, and sets expectations about realistic and plausible clubs. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, quota usage, or response characteristics.

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, with the core function in the first and a requirement in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and access requirement, which is adequate for a simple read-like tool. However, it omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, and with no annotations the agent must infer these. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but parameter clarity remains a 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It never mentions top_n or clarifies that player_id is the player for whom to find opportunities. It only implicitly ties to a player via 'for a player', leaving both parameters under-explained.

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 defines the tool's function: producing a recruitment opportunity map with reachable clubs ranked by fit. It uses a specific verb (map) and resource (player opportunities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club_squad_gaps and get_player.

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 a scouting/transfer scenario via 'recruitment opportunity map' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or specify exclusions. There is no mention of conditions like 'use when exploring transfer options' or 'for club-side gaps, use get_club_squad_gaps instead.'

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