search_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the search key, that results are account ids, and how to handle a Steam profile URL. However, it is silent on match semantics, result limits, pagination, and error behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 sentences with no filler. The most important facts — what is searched and what is returned — are front-loaded, and the extra URL guidance earns its place.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description is adequately complete: the schema covers the input, and the description explains the output and a common id-extraction case. Mentioning result limits or ambiguity handling would improve completeness, but nothing essential is missing for basic correct invocation.

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 the single q parameter with a clear description and minLength constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description adds peripheral context about personaname and account-id derivation but does not substantially improve on the schema's parameter semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Search Dota 2 players'), a specific lookup key ('display name / personaname'), and the useful output ('account ids usable with the player tools'). This clearly distinguishes it from stats-oriented player siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with search_dota_entities.

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?

It establishes a clear use case: find players by display name and obtain account ids for use with player tools. It also gives practical guidance for deriving an account id from a Steam profile URL. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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