get_player

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple GET-like tool this is a moderate gap.

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 packs in the core purpose and a concrete list of returned fields with no filler. It is concise and front-loads the most important 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a basic profile lookup. However, it lacks guidance on usage context and does not disclose any operational constraints, which for a tool with no annotations leaves some 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 description covers the single parameter (account_id) thoroughly, including how to obtain the value. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter explanation, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('a player's profile and current competitive standing'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (display name, avatar, country, rank medal, leaderboard position, MMR estimate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_pros or get_player_totals, which focus on different data.

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 usage for basic profile queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_player_pros or get_player_matches. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and field list.

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