mlb_high_low

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return structure ({highLow:[...]}) and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed.' It also clarifies the behavior as 'top and bottom performances,' providing useful behavioral context. No contradictions 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 concise and front-loaded. It opens with the core purpose, followed by the return shape and auth note, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and relies on annotations, the description is fairly complete. It provides the return shape, auth requirement, and a clear statement of what the tool does. It could elaborate on edge cases or parameter interactions, but the combination of schema coverage, annotations, and description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including descriptions for sortStat (with reference to mlb_meta) and orgType enum. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond hinting at 'org level' and 'sortStat', but with full schema coverage, a baseline score 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 high/low stat records for an org level, specifically top and bottom performances for a sortStat in a season. It identifies the resource (stat records) and the operation (get high/low), and the included return shape further clarifies the purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_leaders or mlb_stats by emphasizing 'high/low' and 'org level'.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need top and bottom performances for a sortStat at an org level in a season. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the scope ('org level', 'sortStat', 'season') is specific enough to guide an agent. The note 'Auth: none needed' also helps with practical usage.

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