search_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that data is live from the FPL API and enumerating the returned stat fields. It omits freshness/caching behavior and any rate-limit notes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and source front-loaded, then return fields, then usage exemplars. No repetition and every clause carries information.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (price, total points, form, ownership, ep_next, availability) so the agent knows what it gets back. Nothing essential to calling 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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including examples and defaults. The description only paraphrases 'sorted by a chosen stat' and the filter set, adding no format or edge-case semantics beyond structured fields — the 3 baseline applies.

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 ('Find and rank current-season FPL players'), names the data source (live FPL API), and enumerates the filter and sort dimensions plus the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from get_player_history or get_live_availability on description alone.

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?

Gives three concrete usage exemplars ('best midfielders under £8m', 'how is Palmer doing', 'find a replacement') that map cleanly to the parameter set. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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