mlb_awards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format but does not mention pagination, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns historical or current data. This lack of context leaves agents unaware of potential limitations.

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 sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It includes an example and the return structure concisely, without unnecessary fluff. However, it could be more structured by separating parameter info.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required) and lack of output schema, the description provides enough to understand basic usage and return values. However, it omits details on optional parameters (season, sportId) and their effects, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only indirectly mentions awardId through examples, but does not describe the 'season' parameter (format, range) or 'sportId' (possible values, default 1). The return structure is given, but parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 recipients of an award, provides concrete examples of award IDs (MLBHOF, ALMVP, etc.), and distinguishes from the sibling mlb_awards_list which is for discovering awardIds. The verb 'Recipients of' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 mentions using mlb_awards_list to discover awardIds, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs. other award-related tools like pl_awards, nor does it give exclusions or context about league-specific usage (though the tool name implies MLB).

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