search_fpl_players

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

The description indicates that partial names are supported ('Player name or partial name'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, exact match behavior, pagination, or performance characteristics. Given the absence of annotations, the description adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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 concise, using a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections. All information is relevant and not extraneous. It could be slightly more streamlined by removing the 'Args' and 'Returns' headers to save space, but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded with the core 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?

The description covers the input parameters well but lacks details about the output format. 'List of matching players with details' is vague – it does not specify what fields are returned, sorting order, or error conditions. Given that there is no output schema, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides clear meanings for all 4 parameters: query is 'Player name or partial name', position lists valid values (GKP, DEF, MID, FWD), team is 'team name filter', and limit is 'Maximum number of results'. This adds significant value beyond the schema's titles.

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 function: 'Search for FPL players by name with optional filtering'. It specifies the resource (FPL players) and the action (search), and differentiates from sibling tools like get_player_information by emphasizing name-based search and optional filters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_players, get_player_information). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The context is purely functional without decision support.

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