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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful interpretation context beyond annotations: 100 is league average, results split by batter handedness, and metric coverage. It does not describe pagination or default limit behavior, but it substantially helps interpret the data.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose/scope first, then the scale, then the metric list. The metric list is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what the tool returns.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description gives enough to invoke and interpret the result: scope, normalization scale, and covered metrics. It could be more complete by describing row structure or pagination, but those gaps are minor for this lookup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely relates to the split and metric/sort concepts, but it does not add syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides for park, limit, split, and sort_by.

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 identifies the resource (park factors), scope (every MLB stadium), and segmentation (batter handedness), with a list of covered metrics. It is specific enough to distinguish this from other MLB tools, though it does not state an explicit verb or directly route against siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description only defines the dataset; an agent must infer that this is the tool for park-factor queries rather than being told explicitly.

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