balldontlie_mlb_games

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds important context: it warns that the response shape is from vendor docs and has NOT been verified, advising users to inspect the actual payload. It also highlights a notable inconsistency: `away_team` here, but `visitor_team` on NBA/NFL paths. These caveats go beyond annotations and provide critical behavioral guidance.

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 fairly concise and packs a lot of essential caveats into a short space. It clearly separates the main action, the return shape, the warning about unverified shape, the example, and auth note. Slightly dense for an AI agent but every sentence earns its place.

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 has a moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema). The description covers key aspects: the known response shape, example usage, critical field-name inconsistencies, and the fact that the shape is unverified. The main gap is that it doesn't describe cursor pagination usage, but the schema does have a cursor parameter. Overall, fairly complete for a simple list tool.

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 defines each parameter. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond stating 'date, season or team' as the main filters, which maps to the parameters. It doesn't elaborate on values or combinations, but the schema covers the basics, so a 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 states the tool fetches 'MLB games by date, season or team', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from the alternative `mlb` provider by noting the official `mlb` provider is 'far deeper', which helps a user choose between the two.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs the official `mlb` provider: 'For MLB alone, the keyless official `mlb` provider is far deeper.' This gives clear guidance on when to prefer an alternative. It also notes the requirements for a key (BALLDONTLIE_API_KEY) and provides an example query.

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