mlb_free_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return structure ({freeAgents:[...]}) and stating 'Auth: none needed,' which are behavioral details not captured by the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact sentences cover purpose, return format, and auth requirement, with no filler. Front-loaded with the key purpose statement. A minor bracket typo in the return shape ('position]}]') slightly detracts.

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 query tool with rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), full schema coverage, and explicit return format in the description, this is largely complete. The main gap is lack of pagination/result-count behavior, but this is acceptable for a straightforward list tool. Auth requirement and return shape compensate for the missing output schema.

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 three parameters (season, order, leagueId) have descriptions in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. The description's 'for a season' aligns with the required season parameter, and leagueId's schema description ('103=AL, 104=NL') already provides semantic meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail 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's function: retrieving free agents for a season with player and from/to-team signing info. The resource (free agents) and scope (season) are stated, though the verb is implied ('returns') rather than explicit. It does not explicitly distinguish from similar MLB info tools like mlb_transactions.

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_transactions or mlb_people_changes. The 'for a season' phrase provides scope context but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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