Get Player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: the name search is case-insensitive and searches across both rosters and free agents. It also implies the tool returns a single player ('one player'), which is useful. It doesn't mention edge cases like no match or multiple matches, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary lookup method (id) and then adds the secondary method (name substring). Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the two lookup modes and the search scope. It doesn't specify behavior when both id and name_search are provided, or what happens with no matches, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and annotations. The tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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 60%, so the schema documents sport, season, and league_id with defaults. The description adds meaning for 'id' and 'name_search' by explaining they are the two lookup methods, but it doesn't add detail beyond what the schema provides for the other parameters. The description doesn't explain the relationship between id and name_search (e.g., are they mutually exclusive? what if both are provided?). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up one player by ESPN player id, or by a case-insensitive name substring search across rosters and free agents.' It specifies the resource (player), the lookup methods (id or name substring), and the scope (rosters and free agents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rosters or get_free_agents, which list collections rather than look up a single player.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a single player by id or name. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of siblings (get_rosters, get_free_agents) makes the distinction clear. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use get_rosters to list all players' but the current wording is sufficient.

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