mlb_datacasters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no auth is needed and specifies the return shape, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explain the behavior of the optional parameters or the meaning of the cross-reference to pl_match_officials, so it adds limited insight beyond the 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 concise and front-loaded with the resource definition. It includes return format and auth info in a clear structure. However, the last line 'Also answers this: pl_match_officials' is ambiguous and could be confusing, slightly detracting from clarity but not from conciseness.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the date and sportId parameters affect the result, nor does it clarify the 'Also answers this' statement. An agent cannot determine whether this tool is appropriate for a given request or how to parameterize it correctly, despite the annotations covering safety.

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% for the two parameters (date and sportId), each with a brief description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters.

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 a specific resource ('Datacaster (official scorer-adjacent stringer) assignments') and implies a retrieval action by providing the return shape. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool mlb_official_scorers by explicitly labeling datacasters as 'scorer-adjacent.' The name itself clarifies it returns MLB datacasters, so the purpose is clear and well-scoped.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The only cross-reference, 'Also answers this: pl_match_officials,' is confusing and does not clarify when to use this tool versus the dedicated pl_match_officials sibling. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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