get_players

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the response size (several megabytes), the recommended caching strategy, and the daily call limit. This goes beyond annotations and provides essential operational details.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, content, and usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important info (purpose and filtering advice) is front-loaded. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, the size implications, caching strategy, and when to use filters. It is self-sufficient and leaves no critical gaps.

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 all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and descriptions. The description reinforces the filter preference but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch Sleeper's player-ID lookup map'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_user or get_trending_players by focusing on the lookup map. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'Prefer position and active filters when a smaller lookup is enough' and advises caching and calling no more than once daily. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context of when to call and when to filter is clear, making it strong but not maximal.

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