mlb_awards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so the description correctly avoids repeating those. It adds value by stating 'Auth: none needed' and providing the exact return structure ({awards:[{id, name, season, player, team, votes}]}). This goes beyond what annotations and schema convey, giving agents a clear picture of the call's behavior and output.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose and examples, followed by a pointer to the list tool and the return format. The 'Also answers this: pl_awards' line is slightly confusing and lacks context, which slightly detracts from clarity, but overall the structure is efficient with minimal waste.

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, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to find award IDs, that no auth is needed, and the return shape. The schema handles parameter details like season filtering and sportId default. The only minor gap is the unclear relationship with pl_awards, but it does not impair an agent's ability to call 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including examples for awardId (e.g., MLBHOF, ALMVP). The description primarily repeats those examples and doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already has. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Recipients of an award' with concrete examples (MLBHOF, ALMVP, etc.), and explicitly points to mlb_awards_list for discovering award IDs. This distinguishes it from related tools and leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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 tells you to use mlb_awards_list to find award IDs, which is the key alternative for discovery. It also notes auth is not needed. However, the line 'Also answers this: pl_awards' is ambiguous and does not clarify when to prefer this tool over the dedicated pl_awards sibling. It fails to explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the guidance given is sufficient for most cases.

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