mlb_playbyplay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, reducing the need for safety disclosure. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return structure (allPlays, scoringPlays, currentPlay) and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed.' This helps the agent understand what to expect from the tool without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, followed by a concise return structure and an auth note. Every element earns its place without wasted words. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides a helpful return structure and auth information. It lacks some context such as how to obtain gamePk or potential size of the payload, but these are either in the schema or foreseeable. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, with both gamePk and timecode described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters—it only mentions the schema's own descriptions are sufficient. Since the description's role is to add value beyond schema, and it doesn't, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Pitch-by-pitch / play-by-play log — every plate appearance with result, pitches, counts, runners and scoring-play flags.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like mlb_boxscore or mlb_linescore, which focus on different aspects of a game.

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 usage context is implied by the description: if you need detailed play-by-play information, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., mlb_live_feed, mlb_boxscore) or when not to use it. The description lacks exclusion criteria or direct comparisons, earning a mid-range score.

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