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 shape of the returned feed, but with an output schema present that content is largely restated rather than adding behavioral context such as staleness of live scores or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, followed by the parameter and the sibling pointer in three compact sentences. The parameter sentence is redundant with the schema, which is a minor waste rather than a structural flaw.

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 a single-parameter lookup with an output schema and explicit read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and which sibling to use instead. The only gap is how to discover a valid game id, which is minor for a low-complexity tool.

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% and there is only one parameter. The description repeats the schema verbatim ('id: Required. Numeric MLB game id.') without adding format hints, sourcing guidance, or how to obtain a valid game id, so the baseline of 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 and resource (returns an MLB game feed) and enumerates the contents (status, teams, score, innings, pitchers, decisions, box-score totals). It also explicitly names the sibling mlb_game_boxscore as the different-scope alternative, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to mlb_game_boxscore for player-level boxscore data, which implies this tool is the game-level counterpart. However, it never states the positive condition for calling this tool (e.g. when a game-level summary rather than player stats is wanted), so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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