mlb_allstar_writeins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context beyond this: it specifies the exact return object structure and explicitly notes that no authentication is needed. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise, containing only the essential information: what the tool returns, the return shape, and authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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-documented parameters and good annotations, the description provides a clear return schema and auth requirement. It lacks only a brief explanation of what 'write-in candidates' means in the All-Star context, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including season year and league id with allowed values (103=AL, 104=NL). The tool description does not add further parameter clarification beyond what the schema already provides, but this is acceptable given the 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: All-Star write-in candidates for a league and season. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like mlb_allstar_ballot and mlb_allstar_final_vote by focusing specifically on write-ins. The return shape is also specified.

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 implies usage for retrieving write-in candidates for a given league and season, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as mlb_allstar_ballot or mlb_allstar_final_vote. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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