mlb_schedule

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the return structure including gamePk, status, teams, score, and venue. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, rate limits, or default behavior when parameters are omitted. Basic behavior is covered but not comprehensively.

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: two sentences for purpose and a third for return format. It is front-loaded with the main action and parameters. Slightly more detail could be added without verbosity. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core parameters (date, team) and return structure. Missing details on optional parameters like season, hydrate, gameTypes, and data limitations (e.g., pagination). Adequate for a basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 description must compensate. It implicitly explains date, startDate, endDate, and teamId through usage description. It also details the return structure, giving context to parameters like gamePk. However, it does not explain season, hydrate, gameTypes, or sportId (though sportId default is noted). Adds significant value beyond the schema but incomplete for all 8 parameters.

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 provides a game schedule filtered by date range or single date, optionally for one team. It distinguishes from siblings like mlb_schedule_postseason by focusing on regular season games. The return structure is explicitly detailed.

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 when to use the tool: for a single date or startDate/endDate range, and optionally for a team. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like mlb_schedule_postseason, but the date-based usage is clear. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to sibling tools.

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