mlb_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: explicit 'Auth: none needed' and the return shape '{roster:[{person, jobType, job}]}'. It also notes it can answer a related query, which is a behavioral trait. 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 compact—three short lines—and front-loaded with the main purpose. It delivers return shape, auth, and an extra routing hint without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return structure, examples, and auth details. It does not explain any caveats (e.g., which leagues are covered beyond MLB or the Premier League note), but overall it is adequate for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (season, jobType, sportId). The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples of jobType codes (UMPR, SCORER, DATACASTER, etc.), which helps the agent understand valid inputs, though it does not elaborate on season or sportId beyond the schema.

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 people holding a job type for a season, with specific verb ('holding'), resource ('job type'), and examples (UMPR, SCORER, etc.). It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like mlb_umpires or mlb_datacasters, hence not a 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?

The description gives a hint that it can also answer pl_match_officials, which is a routing note, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specialized sibling tools (mlb_umpires, mlb_datacasters, mlb_official_scorers). No exclusions or selection criteria are given, so the agent is left to infer usage.

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