get_player_information

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes inputs and outputs but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., authentication), data freshness, or potential errors. The return type is vague ('comprehensive player information').

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?

Description is structured with Args/Returns but slightly verbose. The docstring format adds clarity but could be more compact. It front-loads the main purpose.

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?

No output schema, so description needs to explain return value. It says 'comprehensive player information including stats and history' which is vague. Missing details like error handling, performance implications, or behavior when both identifiers are provided.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must define parameters. All 6 parameters are described with their purpose (player_id, player_name, etc.), adding value. However, constraints like valid gameweek ranges or name format are missing.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed information and statistics for a specific player', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_fpl_players' which implies searching rather than looking up a specific 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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_fpl_players or compare_players. It mentions precedence of player_id over player_name but offers no contextual guidance on tool selection.

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