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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results are paginated, only Cat/Pit/Pitching Team rows yield records, and League rows produce nothing. No contradictions.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste; the core verb and resource scope are front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and routing hint.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The description sufficiently covers input sourcing and the League-row exception for a 10-parameter tool; only minor detail on split/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: entity_id must come from the matching leaderboard and type/filters must be repeated to get consistent results, plus a pointer to mlb_discovery for team and game_type values.

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 ('Fetch paginated play-location events') and a precise resource scope tied to Catcher Blocking leaderboard rows of type Cat, Pit, or Pitching Team. An agent can distinguish this from the parent mlb_statcast_catcher_blocking leaderboard without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a prerequisite (pass an entity_id from the matching leaderboard and repeat its type and filters) and an exclusion (League rows have no detail records), plus a routing hint to mlb_discovery for team and game-type values. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not alternation but the context is clear.

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