mlb_game_content

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, the description adds useful behavioral details: it specifies the return keys ({editorial, media, highlights, summary, gameNotes}), states that auth is not needed, and notes that the box-score-and-storylines bundle is included only when present. This helps an agent understand the response shape and conditional data.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences plus a return signature and auth note. It front-loads the core purpose and the return structure without any filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 a single documented parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides a complete picture for a simple content-read tool. It includes the return keys and auth requirement, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. A slightly deeper explanation of the content structures would push it to 5.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter (gamePk) with 100% coverage, including its type, requirement, and that it's part of the URL path. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: retrieving editorial/media content for a game, specifically naming highlights, recap, media, and the optional box-score-and-storylines bundle. It distinguishes this from statistical or live-feed tools by focusing on 'editorial / media content.'

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 clear context on when to use the tool (when needing game editorial/media content) and what it returns, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the domain is clear and distinct from sibling tools like mlb_boxscore or mlb_live_feed, no exclusions are stated.

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