mlb_people_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response can be large for a wide window and provides the return structure with specific fields. It does not mention destructive behavior, which is appropriate for a read-only polling tool. Missing details like authentication or rate limits are acceptable for this context.

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 two sentences, extremely concise, and front-loads the purpose and sibling context. It includes the return format without superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, main parameter, return structure, and sibling relationship. The only gap is the lack of explanation for the 'fields' parameter, but overall it is fairly comprehensive.

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 two parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains 'updatedSince' implicitly via 'timestamp', but does not add meaning to the optional 'fields' parameter. The description should clarify what 'fields' accepts or that it's optional and its purpose.

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 retrieves 'Player records changed since a timestamp' and identifies itself as a 'polling/sync helper' and 'people-side sibling of mlb_game_changes'. This provides a specific verb and resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 labels it as a polling/sync helper and mentions the sibling tool mlb_game_changes, implying when to use it for syncing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but 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.