mlb_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral context. It only hints at a read operation (returns profiles) and shows return fields, but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it supports partial failures.

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?

Description is brief and includes a return type signature, which is helpful. However, the return fields listing could be more concise or better formatted.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should fully describe what the tool returns and any constraints. It partially does (lists return fields) but lacks explanation of hydrate parameter, error responses, pagination, or limitations.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only addresses the personIds parameter implicitly. The hydrate parameter is completely unexplained, leaving agents without guidance on its purpose or valid values.

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?

Clearly states it batch retrieves player profiles for multiple personIds, and correctly positions itself as the multi-id version of mlb_player, distinguishing from the single-player tool.

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?

Implies usage when multiple personIds are needed (vs mlb_player for single), but does not explicitly state when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings.

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