mlb_player_search

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return structure and stating no auth is needed, but omits details on ambiguity handling, pagination, or rate limits. This is a strong addition beyond 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?

Description is two concise sentences plus a return format and auth note. It is front-loaded, direct, and every sentence serves a purpose without any fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly provides the return structure and auth requirement, covering the core use case. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., multiple matches, no results) but remains fairly complete for a simple search tool with good 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 descriptions cover both parameters (names and limit) fully, so the description does not need to add much. It provides no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but with 100% coverage, 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?

Description uses a specific verb (find) and resource (players), and clarifies it resolves a name to personId(s) and basic bio. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve players by ID, like mlb_player.

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 clearly implies use for name-based search, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as mlb_player or mlb_people, nor does it state when to avoid this tool. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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