mlb_game_play_by_play

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool returns a comprehensive set of 'at-bat and pitch/event records', which is useful, but it lacks detail on response format, data availability limits, or potential error conditions. The added behavioral insight beyond the tool's name is minimal.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then elaborate with a clear statement of included data. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a straightforward tool with one parameter, and the description effectively communicates its purpose and the scope of returned data. However, given the absence of annotations and an output schema, a brief pointer to related tools or data granularity nuances would enhance completeness. Still, it is adequate for the simple nature of the operation.

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 a full description of the single 'id' parameter as a 'Numeric MLB game id', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but with such complete schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('MLB game play-by-play'). It further defines the return content as 'every at-bat and pitch/event record', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_game_boxscore or mlb_game that serve different data needs.

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 the tool should be used when play-by-play data is needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., mlb_game_boxscore for a box score) or any exclusion criteria. The usage context is only implicit and not fully fleshed out.

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