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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that roster_type accepts the live value set from mlb_discovery, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether non-active roster types return different shapes. Adequate but not rich.

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 what is returned, then parameter notes and a routing hint. Efficient overall, though the parameter sentences partially duplicate the schema and could be trimmed.

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 need not be explained, and the description covers the required id, the season default, and how to obtain valid roster_type values. It is sufficient for correct invocation, missing only edge-case behavior.

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 team_id and season are already documented. The description mostly restates the schema (team_id numeric, season four-digit default), with the only added nuance being that roster_type draws from a live value set discoverable via mlb_discovery. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a team's players, jersey numbers, positions, and roster status'), which is clearly distinct from mlb_teams (a list of teams). It does not explicitly contrast with adjacent roster tools like espn_team_roster or yahoo_sports_team_roster, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear routing context: use mlb_teams to find a team id and mlb_discovery for valid roster_type values. It does not state when-not-to-use or contrast with other roster providers, but the two dependency pointers are actionable.

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