mlb_allstar_final_vote

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 does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any required authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The return format is given, but that is minimal.

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 very short and to the point, with one sentence and a return type. It is efficient, but could include more useful information without sacrificing conciseness.

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 provides the return structure, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it lacks details on sub-fields (person, team, position) and does not explain the tool's role among related all-star tools. It is minimally complete.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only says 'a league + season' without explaining what leagueId (e.g., 103 for AL) or season (e.g., 2024) represent. This adds no meaningful semantic value over the parameter names.

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 it returns 'All-Star Final Vote candidates for a league + season'. The verb is implied (returns). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mlb_allstar_ballot or mlb_allstar_writeins, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or context (e.g., only relevant during the Final Vote period) mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage.

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