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 the content shape (at-bat and pitch/event records), but says nothing about volume, pagination, or ordering for a potentially large per-pitch dataset.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The id sentence duplicates the schema and the boxscore sentence is slightly muddled, so it is efficient but not perfectly tight.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema handling return values, the definition is complete: it says what comes back and points at the relevant sibling. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter. The description merely repeats 'id: Required. Numeric MLB game id.' verbatim, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (returns) and resource (every at-bat and pitch/event record) scoped to a single MLB game. It also names a sibling (mlb_game_boxscore), so an agent can distinguish this from the boxscore tool without opening either 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?

It references mlb_game_boxscore but frames it as 'to get an MLB player boxscore,' which restates that tool's function rather than stating the condition under which an agent should pick play-by-play over the boxscore. The routing is implied, not explicit.

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