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

This dimension is exceptionally strong. The description discloses critical operational details beyond annotations, including the API source constraint ('Baseball-Reference blocks automated access'), the cost structure ('Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call'), and unique sorting behaviors ('ERA and WHIP sort lowest first').

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 definition is detailed but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and key features (player stats, leaderboard) before moving into constraints (time frame, metrics) and operational details (pricing/API limitations).

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 definition is highly complete. It covers the data constraints (2002 to now), the operational constraints (pricing, API source), and the behavior of sorting metrics, meaning no critical information is missing for successful 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description goes further by meticulously listing *all* available statistics categories (G, AB, HR, RBI, ERA, WHIP, etc.). This provides extensive domain knowledge that aids the agent in understanding the options for the `sort` parameter.

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 defines the tool's purpose as providing 'MLB player season statistics' and specifies the primary function as a 'sorted leaderboard.' It explicitly details the types of data tracked (batting, pitching, fielding), making its function highly specific.

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 sets clear scope boundaries by specifying the time frame ('2002 to now') and the data type ('Regular season or postseason'). This helps guide the agent on when this specific detailed stats tool should be used.

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