search_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches by name pattern across all positions but doesn't disclose what is returned (full player profiles? just IDs?), matching behavior for wildcards, or whether results are limited. This is a read/search operation that is reasonably inferable, but the return contract is unspecified.

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?

A single compact sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and scope. Zero wasted words. Could potentially add usage guidance but is economical for a simple search tool.

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?

For a 2-param search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is that return behavior is not specified (what does a search result look like, are there pagination limits, is matching fuzzy or exact). Given the simplicity, it's acceptable but could clarify return format or how results connect to sibling stats tools.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'across all positions' context and clarifies name_pattern is a partial-match search, which is marginally useful. The year parameter is optional and its purpose (filtering season) is inferable from schema alone, so description adds little beyond schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource (search players) and scope (by name pattern, across all positions). It distinguishes itself from get_player_stats and get_position_leaders which are stats-oriented, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from compare_players. The 'across all positions' qualifier adds useful scope clarity.

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 implies this is the lookup tool for finding players by name, which contrasts with stats-oriented siblings. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or explicitly reference alternative tools. Usage context is reasonably clear from the name search focus but lacks explicit exclusions.

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