mlb_boxscore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the behavioral safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context: a detailed return structure and an explicit 'Auth: none needed' note, which goes beyond what annotations alone provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Returns block is structured and informative, and the Auth line is a single useful addition. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the name.

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 read-only, idempotent boxscore tool with only two parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the inline Returns structure, and the auth/parameter requirements are clearly stated. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid gamePk, but that's not required at this level of detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both gamePk and timecode. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema, though it references mlb_schedule for gamePk which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 returns a 'Full game boxscore' with specific details (batting/pitching lines, team totals, officials, top performers). This makes it distinct from lighter-weight siblings like mlb_linescore and is a specific verb+resource construction.

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 when to use (when a complete boxscore is needed), and references gamePk from mlb_schedule as a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like mlb_linescore or mlb_live_feed. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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