mlb_live_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent traits; description adds 'Auth: none needed' and warns of the payload size with 'large'. This provides useful context about expectations beyond what annotations specify.

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?

Three compact lines with clear structure, no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the main purpose and quickly covers return value and auth.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a breakdown of the return object and notes the feed's size. It is sufficiently complete for a complex API, though it could clarify when to prefer this over specialized endpoints.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional clarification for hydrate or timecode, and merely restates that gamePk is required via the return structure; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly defines the tool's function: retrieving the complete MLB live game feed, combining gameData and liveData. It distinguishes itself from sibling MLB tools like mlb_boxscore or mlb_playbyplay by labeling itself 'the firehose' and 'complete'.

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 conveys that this tool returns everything about a game, implying use when comprehensive data is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but 'complete' and 'firehose' provide clear context for when to choose it over more focused counterparts.

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