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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a Savant infraction dataset, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or result shape beyond what the schema/annotations imply.

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?

A compact two-clause sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the filter enumeration. No wasted words, though the filter list is a mild restatement of schema content.

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 the description needn't explain returns, and all 10 params are schema-documented, so the coverage is adequate for this filtered-listing tool. It omits any note on entity identification format, which is a minor gap.

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 one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description merely summarizes the filter families (season, min pitches, zero-inclusion, name search, ordering) without adding format or interaction semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 precise resource ('Baseball Savant Pitch Timer infraction rows') with the supported entity grouping (pitchers, batters, catchers, teams, opposing teams). It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely-named mlb_statcast_pitch_tempo.

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?

Gives explicit guidance to 'use mlb_discovery for exact values' for sort fields / entity values, which routes the agent to the right helper tool. However, it offers no when-not-this-tool exclusion or prerequisites, so it stops short of a full 5.

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