player_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Full breakdown' implies a read-only informational report, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or whether it depends on the currently configured league. The listed categories give some insight into the report's scope, but no deeper behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's scope. Every word adds value and 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?

The description lists five report categories, giving a good sense of the output content, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it does not mention any dependency on league context or data freshness, and the absence of usage guidance makes the description less complete for an agent that must choose among many sibling tools.

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 has one parameter, player_name, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description only refers to 'one player', which weakly connects the parameter to the tool's purpose, but does not clarify the expected format, name resolution, or any constraints. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Full breakdown of one player' followed by specific report categories (production, role, environment, injury, consistency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rookie_report, team_context, and compare_players, which target other scopes or comparisons.

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 when a comprehensive single-player report is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_players or rookie_report. No exclusions or clear context about league prerequisites are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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