mlb_draft_prospects

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful return shape information and confirms no auth is needed, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or potential errors. This adds some value beyond annotations but is not extensive.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence of purpose, one line for return shape, and a short auth note. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or wordiness.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description includes the return shape, which is essential. Combined with good schema descriptions and annotations, the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly. It lacks details like default limit behavior or interpretation of 'round', but these are minor given the schema descriptions.

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%, with each parameter adequately described ('Draft year. Required — part of the URL path.', 'Max prospects.', 'Filter to a round.'). The description itself does not add any extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool returns draft prospects for a year, specifically the pre-draft prospect board. It identifies the resource (prospects) and the scope (by year). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'mlb_draft' which is also MLB draft related, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mlb_draft' or other MLB prospect tools. It only mentions that no authentication is needed, which is not a usage guideline. There is no mention of 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.