mlb_draft

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing that no authentication is needed and by providing the exact return structure, which is especially helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence, return format in the second, and auth in the third. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundancy.

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 includes the return shape, auth requirements, and the key filter option, which together with the thorough schema and annotations provides a sufficiently complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All four parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds minor reinforcement with 'Filter by round' but does not introduce additional semantic nuance beyond the schema.

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 returning MLB Rule 4 draft results for a given year, including specific pick details (player, school/team, position, signing info). It distinguishes itself from related tools like mlb_draft_prospects by specifying 'results' and 'for a year'.

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 states the primary filter capability ('Filter by round') and implies the need for a year, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusionary guidance.

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