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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: per-game batting AND pitching lines, newest-first ordering, season scoping, and a concrete 5-credit cost.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the use case, then content, ordering, scoping and cost. No filler whatsoever.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and cost plus ordering are disclosed. However, missing pagination and league behavior leaves an agent without enough to call a 6-parameter endpoint confidently at scale.

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 coverage is only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It only hints at season scoping and says nothing about limit/offset pagination (important given 'every game' with a 200-row cap), league (mlb vs ncaabase), or season_type.

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 verb-and-resource: a player's game log with every game's batting line and pitching line, newest first. This is clearly distinct from get_games (games) and get_player (profile), though it never names a 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?

'Use for a player's game log' signals the intended case, and 'optionally one season' implies a season-scoped variant. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_plate_appearances or get_player.

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