mlb_player_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a read operation and the return fields, but omits behavior like multiple results for partial matches, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, with two sentences: first states the purpose, second provides the return schema. No extraneous text. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 a simple tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter format, partial name matching, and full return structure. It is minimally viable but incomplete for complex agent decision-making.

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% and the description only indirectly mentions the 'names' parameter. It does not explain that 'names' accepts a string (likely names), nor does it clarify the 'limit' parameter's purpose or default behavior. This leaves ambiguity for an agent.

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 finds players by name and returns a personId along with basic bio fields. The verb 'Find' and resource 'players' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mlb_player or mlb_people, which could also handle player lookups.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mlb_player, mlb_people). It does not state any prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for the limit parameter.

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