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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and 'Fetch rows' is consistent with a safe read. The description adds that rows can be scoped by row type and that discovery supplies valid values, but says nothing about pagination limits, defaults, or result volume beyond what the schema states. Modest added context on top of annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, then filter dimensions, then the discovery routing. No filler, though the long comma list of filter names is a dense enumeration that could be trimmed since the schema already lists them.

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 21 optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essentials: what dataset, what row types, that all filters are optional-style refinements, and where to get valid values. Missing only the differentiation from overlapping Savant tools.

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% and each parameter already documents its allowed values, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only lists filter categories generically ('season, game, swing threshold, date, contact, team, pitch, count, grouping, sorting, and pagination'), adding no syntax or default information beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch Baseball Savant Bat Tracking rows') and enumerates the four row scopes (batters, teams, pitchers, league totals), so the dataset is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like mlb_statcast_swing_path or mlb_statcast_swing_timing, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 routes the agent to mlb_discovery for exact filter values, which is useful operational guidance for populating parameters. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over adjacent Savant datasets (swing path, swing timing, batted ball), so usage context is only implied.

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