fpl_find_player

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds specific behavioral details: fuzzy matching handling, disambiguation for multiple matches, and error handling messages. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence followed by bullet points for features, args, returns, examples, and error handling. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be more concise without losing key details.

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 simplicity (one parameter, fuzzy search), the description covers input format, usage examples, return types, and error handling. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed in text.

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?

Despite reported 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'player_name' with an example ('Haalnd' matches 'Haaland'). This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's basic type and constraints.

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 verb (Find), resource (Fantasy Premier League player), and key feature (intelligent fuzzy matching). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fpl_get_player_details which likely require exact IDs.

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 explains when to use this tool (fuzzy search for names with typos, partial names, nicknames) vs exact search, and mentions disambiguation. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude scenarios where exact search is preferred.

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