mlb_player_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the constraint that it returns one player's stats and specifies the group enum values, but it does not disclose the return format, data source, rate limits, or error behavior. The read-only nature is only implied by 'Get'.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but the first two sentences are redundant: 'Get MLB player season statistics' and 'Returns one player's MLB season statistics' state essentially the same information. The third sentence about the group enum is useful, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with three well-described parameters, and the description covers the essential input requirements. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what the returned statistics will look like or any potential variations. It provides enough to invoke the tool correctly, but lacks richer context about the output.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly enumerating the valid values for the 'group' parameter ('hitting', 'pitching', 'fielding'), which the schema does not list. It also reinforces that the tool focuses on season statistics, but does not add further detail beyond the schema for 'id' or 'season'.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get MLB player season statistics') and clarifies that it returns one player's stats, which helps distinguish it from team or league stats. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like mlb_team_stats or mlb_league_stats, so some differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'Returns one player's MLB season statistics' implies this tool is for single-player season stats, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any stated exclusions. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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