mlb_leagues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the return format and explicitly states no auth is needed, which are useful details beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every line provides necessary information: examples, parameter hint, return type, and auth status. No wasted words.

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 catalogue tool, the description, combined with the annotations and schema, provides everything needed: what it does, key parameter examples, return structure, auth requirement, and safety profile. No gaps remain.

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 explains all parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete example values (103, 104) and clarifying that sportId=1 corresponds to MLB, which reinforces the schema semantics.

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 as a league catalogue and provides concrete examples (American League 103, National League 104). It is specific about the resource (leagues) and the verb (catalogue/list), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mlb_divisions or mlb_conferences.

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 useful usage hint ('Pass sportId=1 for MLB') and notes that auth is not needed, which helps the agent know when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternatives.

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