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 one genuine behavioral constraint, that League rows have no detail feed, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or response shape for a 15-param feed tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the parameter guidance and the League exclusion. No filler, though the parameter enumeration in sentence two is somewhat list-like.

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 needn't be explained, and the 100%-covered schema handles the 15 params. The description supplies purpose, drill-down context, and the League exclusion, leaving only pagination/ordering behavior unspecified for a read feed.

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 15 parameters in detail, including the discovery-tool references. The description groups the filters ('season/game/hand/outcome/base/team') and highlights entity_id/type, adding only marginal value over the schema baseline.

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 (individual Running Game attempt plays) and scopes it to a pitcher or pitching-team leaderboard row, which implicitly distinguishes it from the leaderboard sibling mlb_statcast_running_game. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Tells the agent to pass the row's entity_id, type, and the same filters, establishing the drill-down context. It also gives a clear when-not: 'League rows have no detail feed.' No alternative tool is named, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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