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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Fetch rows' framing is consistent with that safety profile. It adds the set of filterable dimensions but says nothing about pagination behavior (despite limit/offset params), default row counts, or result ordering beyond what annotations cover.

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, zero waste, with the core resource and scope front-loaded before the filtering clause. Tight and readable, though the parameter enumeration is a long run-on list that partly duplicates 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers what the tool returns and how it can be sliced. It is largely complete for a 25-param, all-optional read tool, missing only sibling disambiguation and pagination notes.

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 25 parameters and their defaults. The description adds marginal value by grouping the filters conceptually (season, game type, split, team, date, pitch, count, timing axis, threshold) and pointing to mlb_discovery, but it introduces no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 Swing Timing and Miss Distance rows') and enumerates the subject granularities (batters, teams, pitchers, league totals). It is clearly distinguishable from generic statcast tools, but it never mentions its closest sibling mlb_statcast_swing_timing_details, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 routing hint 'use mlb_discovery for exact values' is genuinely useful for a tool whose parameters take opaque codes. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives (notably the *_details sibling) and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the choice between sibling tools to inference.

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