mlb_player_game_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a return structure, which is useful context. However, it does not describe edge cases (e.g., empty stats if player did not play) or any quirks about the data. Given the annotations, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a return type sketch. It front-loads the core purpose, provides a simple return shape, and includes an auth note. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to parse and ideal for AI consumption.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey return value structure. It provides a high-level shape ({stats:[...]}) but lacks specific details on stat object keys (e.g., hits, ERA, fielding errors) and does not mention possible empty results or group types (batting/pitching/fielding are listed but not how they map). For a simple lookup with good annotations, this is sufficient but not complete enough to fully inform an agent of all possible responses.

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 100%, and both parameters (personId, gamePk) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter guidance or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics fully.

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 purpose: 'One player's stat line for one specific game' with explicit mention of batting/pitching/fielding. This uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('stat line for one specific game'), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like mlb_player_stats which likely cover broader scopes. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 use case is implied ('one specific game') but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. While an agent can infer the tool is for game-level stats, it does not say 'for season stats, use X' or 'do not use for boxscore'. This is adequate but not distinguishing.

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