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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing a real behavioral quirk: the source 'min_ab' detail parameter is ignored and not exposed, which prevents the agent from hunting for it. It does not add rate-limit or pagination context, but the output schema covers returns.

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 with zero filler: purpose first, then how to source the parameters, then the quirk. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two things structured fields can't: parameter provenance (leaderboard row) and the ignored min_ab parameter. It is complete enough for correct invocation, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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. The description adds provenance beyond the schema by telling the agent the required values come from the corresponding leaderboard row, which helps it chain calls correctly, plus the note that min_ab is intentionally absent.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('game-level pitches'), and clarifies it is an expansion of a Pitch Arsenal batter/pitcher row. It distinguishes itself from the league-leaderboard sibling by emphasizing game-level detail, though it does not name the sibling tool explicitly.

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?

It implies usage by instructing the caller to supply values 'from the corresponding leaderboard row,' suggesting this is a follow-up call. However, it never names the alternative tool or states when not to use this one, leaving the routing implicit.

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