mlb_awards_list

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

The description discloses that it returns a list of awards with specific fields and the output structure. However, it fails to mention the optional filter parameters (sportId, leagueId) that affect behavior. With no annotations, the description should have covered these behavioral aspects.

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 with two short sentences. The key purpose and return structure are front-loaded, and there is no wasteful content.

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 it is a simple listing tool with optional filters, the description adequately explains the output but omits explanation of the filter parameters. The return structure is specified, but the missing parameter documentation reduces 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?

The description does not mention the two parameters (sportId, leagueId) at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for parameters, leaving the agent uninformed about how to optionally filter the results.

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 that returns every awardId with name, description, and sport. It also explicitly positions itself as the id lookup for mlb_awards, distinguishing its role from sibling tools like 'mlb_awards'.

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 obtaining award definitions and IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of sibling tools that might serve different purposes.

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