mlb_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of transactions included, which is useful, but it does not mention other behavioral aspects like pagination, ordering, or what happens when no results are found. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are present.

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 but slightly redundant—'List MLB transactions' is repeated in the second sentence with elaboration. It is still concise and free of unnecessary detail, though it could be tightened to a single sentence.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and enumerates transaction categories, helping an agent understand what types of data to expect. It does not explain optional filters like team_id or player_id, but these are fully described in the schema. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides; the mention of 'date range' simply maps to start_date and end_date already described. Thus the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'List MLB transactions' and enumerates specific transaction types (signings, trades, options, assignments, injured-list moves). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling MLB tools like mlb_schedule or mlb_team_roster.

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 states the tool operates 'for a date range,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not warrant a 5, but the intended use case is evident.

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