mlb_game

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose safety or side-effect behavior (e.g., that it is read-only, error conditions, or data freshness). It only lists the output fields, leaving the agent to infer that it's a safe read operation.

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, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant information. Every word contributes to describing the tool's output.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose, the input from the schema, and the expected output contents. It doesn't mention error handling or data limitations, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage of the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Numeric MLB game id'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter-specific context. Baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('MLB game feed') and its scope (status, teams, score, innings, probable pitchers, decisions, team box-score totals). This differentiates it from sibling tools like mlb_game_boxscore and mlb_game_play_by_play.

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 implies its usage (when you need a compact game feed) and lists the included data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mlb_game_boxscore or mlb_game_play_by_play, nor does it mention exclusions.

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