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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It discloses the data source and coverage, the exact return fields, the meaning of game_type codes, that doubleheaders produce an array, and that missing valid combinations return found:false rather than an empty success.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. The long enumeration of return fields is useful but slightly overpacked for a single paragraph.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly: fields returned, array behavior for doubleheaders, game_type codes, and found:false behavior. It also specifies source and historical coverage, making it complete enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces accepted date formats and team code/common-name forms, but it mostly repeats schema-level information rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a box-score-level summary of MLB game(s) for one team on one date from Retrosheet game logs. It also distinguishes the tool from play-by-play logs and from broader season/player tools by making the per-game, per-date boundary explicit.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: one team on one date, with regular season and postseason game types included. It also explicitly says this is not a play-by-play tool, though it does not name sibling alternatives such as baseball_team_season or baseball_player_history.

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