Get player

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields (gamer tag, team prefix, linked user) but does not disclose failure modes, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Since read-only behavior is annotated, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional context about id provenance is placed after the primary statement. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns and where to get the id. It could mention error behavior (e.g., player not found) but that is not crucial for a basic lookup. The description is complete enough for agents to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents playerId ('Numeric start.gg player id') at 100% coverage. The description adds extra value by explaining where to find valid player ids ('set/entrant results (players[].playerId)'), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('start.gg player'), and selection method ('by numeric player id'), and lists the key returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_sets, which returns sets rather than player details.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by explaining how to obtain the required playerId: 'Player ids appear in set/entrant results (players[].playerId).' This implies usage when you have a player id from those sources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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