mlb_awards

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact return shape ({awards:[{id, name, season, player, team, votes}]}) and that no authentication is needed. This is helpful but not exhaustive (no mention of error cases or pagination), justified by the strong annotation coverage.

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 three concise sentences: purpose with examples, pointer to related tool, and return/auth notes. Every sentence adds value with zero fluff.

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 one required parameter, the description covers purpose, related tool, return structure, and auth requirements. Combined with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, it is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by pointing to mlb_awards_list for awardId discovery and repeating examples, but it does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 award recipients, listing specific award IDs (MLBHOF, ALMVP, etc.) and explicitly points to mlb_awards_list for discovering award IDs. This gives a specific verb+resource scope and distinguishes it from the related sibling tool.

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?

It says 'Discover awardIds with mlb_awards_list', which provides a clear complementary workflow and implies using this tool when you already know the award ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with other MLB tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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