mlb_people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the core behavior is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return structure and stating that no authentication is needed, which are useful behavioral details beyond the 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?

The description is three short sentences: one for the main purpose, one for the return format, and one for auth. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and the key purpose is stated first.

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 batch player profile tool, the description covers the essential points: what it does, the input type, and the return format. It doesn't specify any limits on personIds array size or detailed hydrate behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool and existing schema descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100% (both hydrate and personIds have descriptions), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does clarify that personIds is a list (matching the array type in schema) and gives an example for hydrate in the schema itself. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, which is appropriate at baseline 3.

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 batch player profiles for a list of personIds, using a specific verb ('Batch') and resource ('player profiles'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mlb_player by explicitly calling it 'the multi-id form of mlb_player', which is a clear differentiation.

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 this tool: when you need multiple player profiles at once, referencing mlb_player as the single-id alternative. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but the alternative is named and the context is clear enough.

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