mlb_conferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that no auth is needed and gives the exact return shape, which is useful context. It does not disclose additional behavior like default parameter handling or pagination, but for a simple read-only catalogue, the added information is adequate.

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 very concise: a short title, a return shape, and an auth note. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: the return fields and auth requirement. It does not explicitly state default behavior when no filters are provided, but this is inferable from the schema's default null values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only list tool.

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 descriptions for both parameters (season year, filter to one conference), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 states it is a 'Conference catalogue' and details the return structure (id, name, abbreviation, league, hasWildcard), making it clear this tool lists conferences. It is distinct from sibling tools like mlb_divisions and mlb_leagues. The phrasing is a noun rather than an explicit action, but the 'Returns' line clarifies it is a retrieval operation.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes conferences are 'used by some leagues / amateur levels,' hinting at context, but does not state exclusions or recommend other tools. There is no mention of when to apply the season or conferenceId filters.

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