fpl_get_player_details

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict any of these. It adds useful behavioral context, such as error handling details and that it returns a formatted string, which goes beyond 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-organized into sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) but is somewhat verbose. For a tool with one parameter, it could be more concise. Each section adds value, but there is redundancy (e.g., examples repeated in Args and separate Examples section).

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 mentions that the return value is a string with comprehensive information, but lacks detail on the format or structure. Given the tool has one parameter and good annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional. The lack of an output schema in the provided context (though signaled as present) limits completeness assessment.

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 already provides a clear description and examples for the single parameter `player_name`. The tool description repeats these examples in the 'Args' section without adding new semantic information beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Get comprehensive information about a specific Fantasy Premier League player.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like `fpl_find_player` by noting it is the 'most comprehensive player tool.'

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 includes an 'Error Handling' section that suggests using `fpl_find_player` if the name is ambiguous, providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative. It also implies this is the go-to for detailed player info. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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