Players of a team

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, and the description still adds real value: it resolves the default season ('current season of the team's main league') and warns 'Players with a zero in the chosen stat may be missing', a subtlety that would otherwise be misread as absent data. Auth, rate limits, and pagination/limits are not mentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with verb, resource, and returned fields, then examples, then defaults and the sibling pointer; nearly every sentence earns its place. The dangling '`competitions` lists other leagues' clause is confusing wording that slightly undercuts an otherwise tight statement.

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 the burden and does reasonably well by naming the stats and warning about zero-stat omissions and defaults. It does not describe the result shape in detail (one row per player? sorted by stat?) or any result-size limits, which for a list-returning tool would be the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline; the description goes slightly beyond by explaining how the season default is resolved and how the `stat` choice affects which players appear in the result. It adds no meaning for `team_id` or `league_id` beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Get the season statistics of one football team's players') plus the exact stats returned: goals, assists, appearances, minutes, cards. It is distinguishable from v3_player (single player) and v3_top_players (league-wide leaders) without opening any 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?

Gives concrete triggering queries ('who scored for Perspolis', 'Esteghlal assists') and an explicit hand-off: 'Pass a player id to v3_player.' It does not explicitly distinguish this from v3_top_players or v3_league_stats, and the reference to '`competitions` lists other leagues' points at a field that is not in this tool's schema, which may confuse an agent.

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