mlb_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as fetching data and returning lookup rows, implying a read-only operation. The example output shape adds transparency, though it does not explicitly mention idempotency or safety.

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 concise with two sentences plus an output shape example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Meta lookup') and each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, usage, and output shape adequately. It does not discuss prerequisites or alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools mitigates this need.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the 'type' parameter specifies which kind of values to fetch, and gives examples like 'stat types, positions'. However, it does not enumerate all possible values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it is a 'meta lookup' that fetches valid parameter values (stat types, positions, etc.) and specifies it uses a single '/{type}' endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch actual data.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for fetching valid values for parameters used elsewhere, giving concrete examples. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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