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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds that data comes from the official MLB Stats API and covers both in-progress and completed games, plus the granularity of the lines. It doesn't discuss pagination or error handling, but that's minor here.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/content, data provenance, and parameter sourcing. No redundant wording.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, where the ID comes from, and when it applies. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents game_pk's type and source. The description only repeats that source, adding no 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 opens with 'MLB BOX SCORE for one game by gamePk' and enumerates the exact batter, pitcher, and team totals returned, making its scope immediately recognizable against siblings like mlb_schedule or mlb_player_game_log.

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 explains that gamePk should come from mlb_schedule, mlb_probable_pitchers, or a mlb_player_game_log row, and notes it works for in-progress and completed games. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the one-game scope is clear.

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