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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that sort and pagination happen locally (client-side), but says nothing about rate limits, response size, or how 'ALL' vs default pitch_type affects results beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then filtering/pagination behavior, then routing hints. Efficient, though the final two sentences could be slightly tighter.

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. The description covers filtering, sorting, pagination, value lookup via mlb_discovery, and scope exclusions, which is sufficient for a read-only data tool with fully documented parameters.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters, including defaults and ranges. The description restates the filter dimensions (season, pitch type, hand, minimum count) and the local sort/paginate behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 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 and resource ('Fetch Baseball Savant Pitch Movement pitcher rows') and clarifies scope by noting chart axes and CSV export are separate formats. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings like mlb_statcast_pitch_arsenal or mlb_statcast_pitch_tempo, leaving some ambiguity about which pitch tool to pick.

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?

Points the agent to mlb_discovery for exact filter values and explicitly notes that chart axes and CSV export are handled by other page formats, which is real routing guidance. It lacks an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use comparison against the other statcast pitch tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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