fpl_get_player_information

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only single-player lookup, but discloses nothing about what happens when no identifier is provided, how player_id takes precedence over player_name, whether history/fixtures are included by default, or what occurs if the player is not found.

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 efficient sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it is so sparse that it forfeits the opportunity to convey scoping or usage context that other dimensions would benefit from.

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 six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not cover identifier resolution rules, the meaning of the include_* flags, gameweek filtering behavior, or relation to sibling analysis tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent to resolve.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters with defaults and precedence. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information and statistics for a specific player'), making the core purpose identifiable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like fpl_analyze_players or fpl_analyze_player_fixtures, which could also plausibly return player statistics; the overlap is left unresolved.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fpl_search_fpl_players, fpl_analyze_players, or fpl_compare_players. The description also fails to mention when the optional identifier and filtering parameters should be supplied, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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