mlb_allstar_final_vote

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact return structure ({league, candidates:[...]}) and stating that no authentication is needed, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides the return format, and the third covers authentication. Every sentence carries unique information with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with two well-defined parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the purpose, the exact return shape, and the auth requirement, covering all essential context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 fully covers both parameters with clear descriptions: 'Season year' for season and 'League id (103=AL, 104=NL)' for leagueId. The description only restates 'league + season' without adding new semantic detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 states the tool returns All-Star 'Final Vote' candidates for a league and season, and the 'Returns:' line confirms it provides a list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_allstar_ballot and mlb_allstar_writeins by explicitly naming 'Final Vote'.

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: the description indicates the tool is for retrieving Final Vote candidates given a league and season. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., mlb_allstar_ballot for the general ballot) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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