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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the source and year range of the data, and the important failure mode that an unrecognized code is refused with a clear error rather than returning 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 purpose and included data are front-loaded, and the remaining details are useful edge-case guidance. The single dense paragraph with several parentheticals is slightly heavy but does not contain obvious filler.

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 and only two parameters, the description is complete enough: it names the source and year range, enumerates the returned stats, explains accepted team identifiers, and covers the main error case. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining that team accepts either a 3-letter-ish code or a common name, and that historical code changes make names or nearby years useful fallback strategies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "One MLB team's full-season record and stats for one year," and goes on to enumerate the included record categories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like baseball_game_log or baseball_season_leaders, but the resource is clear enough to separate them.

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 practical guidance on how to pass the team argument and what to do when a code is unrecognized (try the franchise name or a nearby year). However, it never states when to choose this tool over related siblings such as game logs, player history, or season leaders.

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