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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the notable detail that filter values are 'live-verified' and describes what the rows represent, but says nothing about pagination behavior, response shape, or rate limits beyond listing 'pagination filters'.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: scope first, then capability. The long comma-separated filter list in sentence two largely restates schema categories, which is mild redundancy but keeps the sentence dense rather than verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all 22 parameters are optional and schema-documented. The description supplies scope plus the discovery cross-reference, which is sufficient for a complex filter tool, though it omits how the board group dimension interacts with the row output.

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 each of the 22 parameters is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description usefully cross-references mlb_discovery as the source of valid values, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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) plus a precise resource (Baseball Savant First Base Receiving rows) and enumerates the grouping scopes (first basemen, throwing fielders, teams, league). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mlb_statcast_first_base_receiving_details, so an agent must infer the list-vs-detail split from the names alone.

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 only routing guidance is 'use mlb_discovery for exact values', which addresses parameter-value lookup rather than when to call this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the filter enumeration ('Supports ... filters') but there are no exclusions or explicit when-to-use conditions.

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