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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is settled. The description usefully clarifies that these are season-long team aggregates vs LHP/RHP, but adds nothing about return shape, pagination, or the interaction with the plan limit noted in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core resource is stated first and the metric list is compact. It is efficient, though the metric enumeration is somewhat redundant with the sort_by enum values.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned metrics, which is the most important missing piece for a stats endpoint. However, it omits usage context and any note on filtering/split semantics, leaving the description adequate but not complete for an agent deciding among many MLB siblings.

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%, with both enums (split, sort_by) fully documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description lists the metric vocabulary that maps to sort_by keys but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific resource and scope: team-level offense split by opposing pitcher handedness, naming the exact metrics returned (wRC+, wOBA, OPS, ISO, K%, BB%). It implies distinction from invoke_mlb_hitter_splits via 'team offense' but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 is given. There are obvious alternatives in the family (invoke_mlb_hitter_splits for individual hitters, invoke_mlb_pitcher_splits, invoke_mlb_team_stacks), and the description provides no conditions for choosing this one over them.

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