mlb_divisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explicitly stating the return shape ('Returns: {divisions:[...]}') and that no authentication is needed, providing useful behavioral details 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 very brief and well-structured: a summary line, a returns line, and an auth note. Each element is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

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, the description provides the output schema and auth requirements, and the schema covers parameter purposes. It lacks parameter usage examples, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of annotations make it sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with basic descriptions ('Filter by sport', etc.), which gives 100% schema coverage and a baseline of 3. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, leaving the schema's generic filters as the only guidance.

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 identifies the resource as a division catalogue with specific content (AL/NL East, Central, West) and league/sport links, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mlb_teams or mlb_leagues. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get,' relying on the noun 'catalogue' to imply the action.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mlb_conferences or mlb_leagues. The description simply states what it returns without any context on typical use cases or exclusions.

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