get_player_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the returned profile information. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns detailed profile information. It does not explain what 'detailed' entails, the structure of the output, or any behavioral constraints. For a read operation with no structured support, more context is needed to fully guide an agent.

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, with only one parameter 'player_id' documented structurally. The description does not add any semantic details about this parameter, such as what constitutes a valid player ID or where to obtain it. However, with a single parameter and no complex schema, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema minimally defines the requirement.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed profile information for a specific MLB player'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_player_seasonal_stats' or 'get_team_roster', which might also provide player-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as 'get_player_seasonal_stats' for stats or 'get_team_roster' for roster details. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering only a basic statement of purpose.

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