search_players

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the case-insensitive search behavior and the exact fields returned. It does not cover edge cases or the effect of the limit parameter, but for a simple search tool, this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences that each add value: the core purpose, the return fields and how to use the ID, and a concrete example of the tool's typical use. No wasted words.

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 simple search tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential behaviors and integration with other tools. It does not mention the `limit` parameter or behavior on no results, but the output schema likely covers return types. Overall, it is complete enough.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains that `query` is a player name, but does not explain `limit` at all. Since `limit` is optional with a default, the omission is less critical, but it still leaves a gap.

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's purpose: 'Find football players by name' with case-insensitivity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_coaches and search_clubs by explicitly focusing on players and mentioning the returned fields (player_id, name, Elo rating, etc.).

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 for when to use this tool: 'This is how you resolve a name like "Bellingham" to an id' and instructs to use the returned player_id with other player tools. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like list_top_players, so it falls short of a 5.

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