mlb_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return format but fails to indicate that the operation is read-only, safe, or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). The agent cannot infer side effects or error handling from the description.

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 brief (two sentences plus a return format block) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence is informative, with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description provides a detailed return format, which is helpful. However, it omits error handling, the optional hydrate parameter, and any behavioral context like read-only nature. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'personId' as required but does not mention the optional 'hydrate' parameter or its purpose. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 'Player biographical profile' and lists specific fields (name, DOB, bats/throws, height/weight, position, debut, current team). It explicitly says 'One personId,' distinguishing it from siblings like mlb_people (multiple people) and mlb_player_stats (statistics, not bio).

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 specifies 'One personId' as the required input, which implies the need for a valid player ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mlb_player_stats for stats) or provide exclusions. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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