mlb_home_run_derby

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

The description explicitly adds 'Auth: none needed,' which is behavior info not present in the annotations. It also outlines the return structure, offering transparency about the response shape. These additions provide useful context beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint 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, stating the purpose in the first line. The return structure is provided in a brief outline, and the auth note is a single clause. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary padding.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations indicating a read-only operation, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, parameter identification, return shape outline, and auth requirement. A more detailed breakdown of the nested matchups fields would be helpful but is not essential for a tool of this simplicity.

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 gamePk with 'Derby game id. Required — part of the URL path,' giving clear semantic meaning. The tool description itself does not add further parameter details, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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's function: retrieving the Home Run Derby bracket and results for a specific derby gamePk. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_schedule or mlb_boxscore by focusing specifically on the derby event and its unique game identifier.

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 phrase 'for a derby gamePk' provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you have a derby game identifier and need bracket or results. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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