mlb_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents and the supported query modes, but it does not specify what happens when no parameters are supplied (schema has no required fields), whether results are live vs. historical, or any limitations/error behaviors. This is a moderate level of disclosure, not a full behavioral picture.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists return fields and query modes. It is front-loaded, every clause adds information, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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 description covers the main intent and the obvious use cases for a schedule/scores tool. However, since no parameters are required and no output schema exists, it leaves ambiguity about default behavior (e.g., what happens with no args) and the exact response structure. The listed return fields partially mitigate this but do not fully specify edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a little value by grouping parameters into 'one date or date range' and 'optionally filtered to a team,' but it does not provide format details or additional semantics beyond what the schema already states for each parameter.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the MLB schedule and scores'), then enumerates the return fields (games, teams, scores, status, probable pitchers, venue, series) and the query modes (one date/date range, optional team filter). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_game, mlb_standings, or mlb_teams by scope and purpose.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use the tool: 'for one date or date range, optionally filtered to a team.' This conveys the primary use cases and parameter combinations, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'use mlb_game for a single game detail').

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