mlb_meta

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context about return shape ('shape depends on type; e.g. positions → [{code, name, type, abbrev}]') and states no auth is needed. 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes return shape and auth. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 being a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description includes purpose, usage, return shape, and auth. It fully supports an agent selecting and invoking the tool 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?

The schema fully covers the 'type' parameter with an enum and description. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'type' is part of the URL path and that the return shape varies by type, with a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's enum listing.

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 fetches valid values for parameters used elsewhere (stat types, positions, game types, pitch codes, etc.). The phrase 'One tool over the API's /{type} endpoint' distinguishes it from sibling MLB tools that fetch specific data rather than lookup tables.

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 implies when to use: when you need to know valid values for a parameter before calling other tools. It establishes its role as a meta-lookup tool, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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