mlb_schedule_tied

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

The description discloses the return structure ({totalGames, dates:[{games:[...]}]}) and states that no Auth is needed, adding value beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. However, it leaves semantic ambiguity about what qualifies as a 'tied' game (e.g., tiebreaker games vs. games ending in a tie). No contradiction with 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the tool's purpose, expected return shape, and authentication requirement in just three lines. Every phrase contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description gives a minimal return structure but omits clarification on the data scope (tie-breaker vs. tied games) and how parameters like hydrate and gameTypes affect the output. It covers the basics but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to correctly interpret results.

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?

Since the input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, the description need not add much parameter detail. It offers no additional meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing the season parameter. This meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 identifies the resource as 'tie-breaker / tied games for a season,' which clearly indicates the subject matter. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as mlb_schedule or mlb_schedule_postseason.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'for a season,' implying a season-based query scope, but fails to mention when not to use it or how it differs from other MLB schedule tools in the sibling list.

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