get_player_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral facts — data is live from the FPL API and match-level granularity is current-season-only. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, but with a read-only tool that is a minor gap.

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 core payload (what it returns) is front-loaded, followed by the optional filters, the usage examples, and the data-availability caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return content — and it does, listing minutes, goals, assists, clean sheets, bonus, xG/xA and points, plus season totals for past seasons. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both optional filters are already documented in the schema. The description confirms the filters exist and scope the result ('only against one opponent or the last N matches') but adds no format, precedence, or combination rules beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('match-by-match record this season') and enumerates the returned stats, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_gameweek_stats or search_players. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrasings ('how has Saka done against Spurs this season', 'is his form real') and an explicit when-not: match-level data exists only for the current season, so opponent splits for earlier seasons are unavailable. That is enough to route an agent correctly.

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