mlb_leaders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the base safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating that no authentication is needed and providing the exact return shape. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default season/limit behavior or potential error conditions.

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, with only three sentences: purpose, return format, and auth. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides a helpful return-shape example. It covers authentication and clarifies the categories. However, it omits default behavior for optional parameters (e.g., season, limit), though those are documented in the schema. For a read-only tool with strong annotations, this is largely complete.

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 all six parameters are already well-documented. The description adds some context by listing example leaderCategories and showing how statGroup appears in the return shape, but it does not materially enhance parameter understanding 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 league leaders for specified categories, with a specific verb ('League leaders') and examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mlb_team_leaders or other league-leader tools, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description describes what it does but does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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