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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the schema: that position, roles, and minimum attempts are silently ignored by the upstream for team views, which tells the agent its filter combination may be a no-op rather than an error.

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, front-loaded: purpose first, then the filter inventory, then the team-view caveat and the mlb_discovery pointer. No filler, though the middle sentence is essentially a param list that the schema already carries.

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 13-param schema is fully self-documenting. The description supplies the one non-obvious cross-parameter rule and a discovery pointer, leaving only pagination/sort interaction and sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented with its allowed values and defaults. The description only restates the filter categories and adds one cross-parameter constraint; per the baseline rule for fully documented schemas, a 3 is appropriate.

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) and a specific resource (Baseball Savant Outs Above Average rows) with the view scope enumerated (fielders, batters, pitchers, team views). It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling mlb_statcast_* tools, so an agent must still infer that OAA is distinct from fielding_run_value or arm_value.

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 gives an actionable rule for team views (position, roles, minimum are rejected) and routes to mlb_discovery for accepted values, but it never says when to choose this tool over the sibling statcast metrics. Usage is implied rather than framed as a selection decision.

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