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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld, so the description adds real value: it discloses that sorting and pagination are local rather than server-side, and that fence display controls and allDiffs do not alter data rows. Auth needs and rate limits are unstated, but the local-processing caveat is non-obvious and useful.

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 with what is fetched, followed by the routing rule and the local-sort caveat. Dense but every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the mode enumeration and the mlb_discovery dependency, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly; minor gaps are the exact enumeration values for each mode.

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% with per-parameter descriptions (modes, sort, limit, offset, rolling, etc.), so the schema carries the burden and baseline is 3. The description adds mode-selection framing but no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already 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) and resource (Baseball Savant Statcast Park Factors) and enumerates the available modes (season, venue, distance, raw, dimensions). It separates itself from mlb_discovery by assigning that sibling the job of resolving seasons/filters, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: choose a mode, then consult mlb_discovery for exact season values and conditional filter sets, and sort/paginate locally. That is clear context for how to drive the tool, though it does not state when this tool should not be used.

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