mlb_schedule_postseason_series

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the return shape ('Returns: {series:[{series:{id, gameType}, totalItems, games:[...]}]}') and clarifies that no authentication is required. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of the response structure.

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 succinct, with information front-loaded. The first sentence explains the core purpose, followed by return format and authentication. There is no redundant or verbose content; every line adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It provides the return shape, authentication requirements, and the grouping behavior. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens when season is null (defaults to current season?) or how sportId affects results, but these are not critical for basic usage and the schema provides defaults.

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% (both 'season' and 'sportId' have descriptions). The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does mention the return structure which gives some indirect context about how the parameters might affect the response. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, a 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?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Postseason series view — games grouped by series (e.g. ALDS, NLCS, World Series).' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mlb_schedule and mlb_schedule_postseason by emphasizing group-by-series semantics. The examples of series add concrete clarity.

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 clear context (this is for postseason series grouping) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, or exclude other tools. While the name and description imply the use case, it lacks explicit guidance such as 'for regular season, use mlb_schedule' or similar.

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