mlb_game_win_probability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by stating 'Auth: none needed' and clearly outlining the return format as a top-level array with specific fields. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by return format and auth. The inclusion of 'Also answers this: espn_core_call' is cryptic and somewhat distracting, preventing a perfect score for structure.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool. Combined with the annotations and parameter schema, the description covers auth, data shape, and safety. The only minor gap is the ambiguous cross-reference to espn_core_call, which adds slight confusion rather than completeness.

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% for both parameters (gamePk and timecode), so the schema already fully documents them. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, such as format examples or relationships between them. Thus, it neither improves nor harms the schema's clarity.

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 as providing a win-probability time series with leverage index after each play. It specifies the return fields (atBatIndex, homeTeamWinProbability, awayTeamWinProbability, leverageIndex, homeTeamWinProbabilityAdded), which distinguishes it from other MLB tools like mlb_boxscore or mlb_playbyplay. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool rather than alternatives. The only cross-reference is the cryptic statement 'Also answers this: espn_core_call', which is ambiguous and does not provide clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria. The reader must infer usage solely from the data description.

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