highlightly_baseball_highlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the bar. The description adds substantial context: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified (advising caution), and it discloses the auth requirement (HIGHLIGHTLY_API_KEY). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent handle potential schema drift.

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 relatively brief and includes the return shape, a caveat, an example, and auth info. It is not highly structured (free-form text) but every sentence earns its place. Slightly disjointed, yet efficient overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a return shape, pagination field, a concrete example, and auth note. It also compensates for uncertainty with the unverified shape warning. It doesn't explain the nested match object in detail, but the approximation warning mitigates that. Fairly complete for a simple read-only 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% with each parameter having a short description (date format, page size, filter by match/league). The description adds a usage example but no deeper parameter semantics, such as how multiple filters interact or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 resource as 'Baseball highlight clips' and the return shape confirms a retrieval function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like soccer/basketball highlights by sport. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'Get', 'List'), instead using a noun phrase, and the intended operation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the example showing a date-based query. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other highlightly_* tools, though the sport-specific naming makes alternatives obvious. No exclusion or alternative tool is mentioned, so guidance is largely implicit.

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