search_players

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description's added caveat about injury data being non-live is genuinely useful behavioral context. It warns about data staleness without contradicting the annotations, though it doesn't mention pagination behavior or output 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 two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and then adding one meaningful limitation. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't explain result shape, pagination semantics, or how injury data appears. The read-only annotation and safety hints cover the risk profile, but an agent would still have to guess at parameter behavior and return structure.

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 0%, and the description does not mention query, limit, offset, or position at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent receives no additional meaning about formats, constraints, or how the parameters interact.

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 'Search' and a clear resource, 'the daily player directory,' which conveys the tool's core function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_unrostered_players or resolve_players, but the 'daily player directory' phrasing narrows the scope enough to be useful.

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 caveat 'Injury data is not a live inactive report' provides an explicit exclusion: this tool should not be used for live injury/inactive status. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when this search is preferable to sibling search tools, so some usage inference is still required.

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