mlb_awards_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the return shape and 'Auth: none needed', providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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, with exactly two sentences: one for purpose and one for return/auth. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains 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 catalogue lookup with no output schema, the description provides the return structure, notes auth is not needed, and implies completeness ('every awardId'). Minor gaps like parameter combination behavior are not critical, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully describes both parameters (sportId and leagueId) with defaults and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles it, earning the baseline score.

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 it is an 'Award definitions catalogue' and explicitly positions it as 'the id lookup for mlb_awards', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool mlb_awards. It also lists the fields returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'the id lookup for mlb_awards' indicates when to use this tool (to resolve award IDs) versus the related tool. While not as explicit as naming an alternative, it effectively guides usage. No exclusions are mentioned, but the tool's simple nature makes this adequate.

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