mlb_draft

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return structure but does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential side effects. It does not discuss error cases or that parameters like limit and teamId affect behavior.

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 with two sentences and a return format example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, missing parameter explanations slightly reduce efficiency.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not cover all parameters, provide usage scenarios, or handle edge cases. The return format is helpful but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It mentions 'year' and 'round' (as filter) but omits 'limit' and 'teamId', leaving these parameters without any explanation of their purpose or effect.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving MLB Rule 4 draft results for a given year, specifying the data fields (player, school/team, position, signing info) and the ability to filter by round. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_draft_prospects.

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 retrieving draft results but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., comparing to prospect or player tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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