mlb_player_stats

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not mention data freshness, rate limits, authentication, or whether the operation is read-only. The output format snippet adds some value but lacks behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering input and output. The first sentence captures the core purpose, with no wasted words. Structure 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main input semantics and provides a clear output example. It omits default values and season's optional nature, but overall is fairly complete given the constraints.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'stats' (type) and 'group' (hitting/pitching/fielding) but does not clarify 'season' (optional, default null) or 'personId' (required). Default values are not mentioned.

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 it returns a single player's stats, specifying the allowed types (season, career, yearByYear, gameLog) and groups (hitting, pitching, fielding). This differentiates it from sibling tools like mlb_player (player info) or mlb_team_stats (team stats).

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 implies use when needing per-player stats by type/group, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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