get_pro_players

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states this is a simple listing operation with no side effects or authentication requirements, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, response size, rate limiting, or whether the list is complete/current, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that presents the core information immediately. Every word contributes value, naming the resource and the key fields returned. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool this description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns and includes enough detail to judge relevance. The only missing element is a note that distinguishes it from the very similar sibling get_player_pros, which would improve completeness for tool selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage of those (trivially) is 100%. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist to describe. This score reflects that the schema fully handles the parameter space.

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 clearly states a verb and resource: 'List of professional players' and names the included attributes (teams, countries, Steam ids). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling get_player_pros, which likely refers to a different endpoint or perspective, so it falls one step short of a top score.

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 provided about when this tool should be used over alternatives, nor are any exclusions or contextual hints given. The presence of the similarly named sibling get_player_pros makes this gap significant, as the agent cannot determine which one to select based on the description alone.

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