mlb_player

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

The description discloses the return structure in detail, mentions that no auth is needed, and aligns with the readOnly and idempotent hints. It adds context by showing the exact response fields, which is valuable given no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a return shape and auth note. No wasted words.

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 simple lookup with two parameters, the description is complete: it provides a mini-output schema, auth info, and the core constraints. It could mention error cases or hydrate effects, but those are largely covered by the schema.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: personId has a clear description and source hint, hydrate includes an example. The description adds little beyond emphasizing the single personId requirement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a player biographical profile, listing the fields returned and requiring a personId. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mlb_player_search by focusing on biography rather than search, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools. It implies usage by saying 'One personId' (you need an ID first) but doesn't mention where to get it from or what other tools might be better for stats or rosters.

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