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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that rows can be batter-, team-, or league-level and enumerates the filter surface, but discloses no rate limits, auth needs, or return-shape detail beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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 fetch purpose followed by the filter surface. No filler text, though the long comma-separated filter list is a bit dense and mostly restates 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?

For an 18-parameter tool, the description names the row granularities, summarizes the filter axes, and points to mlb_discovery for valid values, which is enough given full schema coverage and an output schema that handles return-value detail. It stops short of clarifying how the swing/threshold qualifiers interact, 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 parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline for this is 3. The description groups the filters conceptually (season range, contact, hard-hit, attack zone, etc.) but adds no syntax, defaults, or enum meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 Swing Path and Attack Angle rows') with a clear scope (batters, teams, or league totals). The distinctive metric name distinguishes it from generic baseball stat tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like mlb_statcast_swing_timing or mlb_statcast_bat_tracking, so no sibling-differentiation credit.

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?

Usage is implied by listing the filter dimensions, and it helpfully directs the agent to mlb_discovery for exact filter values. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion or alternative named relative to the closely related Statcast swing/tracking tools.

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