player_card

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context about what the payload contains (projection basis, blend weight, early signals), which is real value, but it says nothing about cost, data freshness, or behavior when the query is ambiguous.

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?

It is a single long inventory sentence with many parenthetical asides. Every listed item is real content, so little is wasted, but the dense bracketed enumerations make it harder to scan than a front-loaded summary plus a short list.

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?

With no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description does the work of describing return contents, which is appropriate. However, a tool returning this much aggregated data across many categories should at least note the identifier resolution behavior and freshness expectations; those gaps keep it at minimally adequate.

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?

There is one parameter, 'query', with 0% schema description coverage. The parenthetical '(name or ESPN id)' is the only disambiguation and it is useful, but it does not say how fuzzy matching works or what happens on multiple matches. With zero schema coverage the description carries the load and only partially discharges it.

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 states a specific resource (one player) and enumerates the exact data it returns: projection and its basis, ESPN preseason vs latest projection, signals, G/Z by category, rank, owner, injury, games left, last-10 averages, news. That is a precise scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rankings or my_roster, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this single-player deep-dive replaces fanning out across rankings, my_roster, injuries, and news, rather than being told so.

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