mlb_game_uniforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds a helpful 'Auth: none needed' note and a return structure example, but discloses no other behavioral traits such as pagination, error behavior, or empty result handling. 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?

The description is extremely concise: a short purpose statement, a return example, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No filler or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with annotations and a single parameter, the description includes a return example and auth requirement, making it reasonably complete. It lacks comparison to sibling tools and edge-case hints, but the minimal nature of the tool and existing schema/annotations cover most needs.

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 describes gamePks as 'Game id(s).' with 100% coverage. The description implies the parameter refers to one or more games but adds no additional semantic detail such as accepted formats, limits, or specific game ID types. Baseline for high schema coverage is 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 'Uniforms worn in one or more games', which identifies the specific resource (uniforms) and action (retrieving for games). It also distinguishes itself from sibling mlb_team_uniforms by focusing on game-based lookup rather than team-based lookup. The return shape provides further clarity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like mlb_team_uniforms or mlb_schedule. The description only states what it does and gives an auth note, but does not mention suitable scenarios, exclusions, or related tools.

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