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 the useful nuance that sorting is local, but says nothing about rate limits, default result volume, or upstream behavior. Credit for the 'local sort' hint, but that is the only behavioral content beyond structured fields.

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 core purpose before the filter list and the mlb_discovery pointer. No filler, though the filter enumeration is dense enough that it approaches a restatement of the schema.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. With 100% schema coverage on all 9 optional params, the description is close to complete; only upstream/pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 all nine parameters documented, so the schema carries the parameter load and baseline is 3. The description's filter list mirrors those parameters and adds little syntax or format detail beyond 'local sort'.

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 player Sprint Speed rows), which implicitly separates it from the team-level sibling mlb_statcast_sprint_speed_teams. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The description enumerates the filtering dimensions (season range, position, team, minimum runs, local sort, pagination) and routes the agent to mlb_discovery for exact id/enum values. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool selection guidance.

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