mlb_game_pace

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

The description discloses the return shape ({sports, teams, leagues}) and explicitly states no authentication is required. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds concrete output structure and auth details, contributing value beyond the structured fields.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for return format, and one for auth. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description provides a sufficient return structure, making output predictable. Combined with annotations for read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (season, sportId, teamIds). The description's mention of 'optionally by team' aligns with the teamIds parameter but adds no additional syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, 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 returns game-pace/tempo metrics (pitches per game, time of game) for a season, optionally filtered by team. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_schedule or mlb_standings by naming the exact metric domain.

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 when season-level pace metrics are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It gives clear context (season, optional team filter) but does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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