Player profile

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: what content the player page actually contains, and specifically that Varzesh3 keeps no career or season statistics there, which prevents a common misuse. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but no output schema exists and the returned field list partially compensates.

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?

Two short paragraphs: the first states what is returned, the second states when to call it and where to go instead. Every sentence earns its place and the essential scoping fact (no statistics here) is front-loaded before the alternatives.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value information and does so by listing the profile fields and mentioning news and videos. It also closes the main behavioral gap (absence of statistics). A minor omission is that the optional sport parameter (football/futsal) is never mentioned, though the schema documents it fully.

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%, and the schema already explains that player_id comes from v3_top_players, v3_team_players, match events or v3_search. The description repeats the same provenance point at a higher level ("after any tool gave you a player id") without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get a player's profile") and enumerates the fields returned (team, position, shirt number, age, country, latest news and videos). It also explicitly separates this tool from v3_team_players and v3_top_players by stating that statistics are not here, so an agent can distinguish it from its siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ("after any tool gave you a player id", "who is X", "news about X") and an explicit when-not-to-use plus alternative (for goals and assists use v3_team_players for the team or v3_top_players for the league). Both the positive condition and the routing alternative are named.

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