mlb_jobs

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and idempotent semantics. The description adds the exact return shape 'roster:[{person, jobType, job}]' and an explicit auth note ('Auth: none needed'), which goes beyond what annotations provide. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint, so it is consistent and informative.

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: one sentence for the main purpose, one line for the return shape, one line for auth. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, examples of required parameter values, and authentication requirements. It omits details like default season behavior or pagination, but those are not critical for this kind of tool and are partially covered by the schema default.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description enriches the jobType parameter by providing concrete valid examples (UMPR, SCORER, DATACASTER, BROADCASTER, COACH), which is helpful for an agent selecting the correct code without querying mlb_meta. Still, it does not fully replace the referenced metadata lookup.

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 resource: people holding a job type for a season, with examples of job types like UMPR and SCORER. It differentiates itself from dedicated endpoints like mlb_umpires by offering a generic jobType parameter, but it does not explicitly name those siblings. Thus it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 on what it returns and example jobType values, implying this is a general way to fetch various job types. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as the dedicated mlb_umpires or mlb_datacasters endpoints.

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