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 filtering scope but nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, default handling for the 18 optional params, or return characteristics. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, purpose front-loaded ahead of the sibling-routing guidance. Nothing superfluous.

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 values needn't be explained, and full schema coverage documents all parameters. The description supplies purpose and alternatives; for an 18-param tool it could optionally note pagination or key defaults, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 18 parameters are already documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description only alludes to the row-type concept (batters/teams/league) and generic 'filters', adding no syntax or semantics 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 (Fetch) and resource (Baseball Savant Swing Path and Attack Angle rows), plus the scope (batters, teams, or league totals with the supplied filters). An agent can distinguish it from swing_timing and bat_tracking siblings 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with their distinct purposes: swing_timing for timing measurements, bat_tracking for bat data, and mlb_discovery for accepted values. It doesn't state an explicit 'when-not' for this tool itself, but the alternatives and their conditions effectively cover the routing decision.

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