mlb_season

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the exact return shape and noting 'Auth: none needed,' which is useful context beyond the structured metadata.

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 with the purpose in the first sentence. The return shape and auth note are included without any waste, making every line valuable.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations, a complete inline return shape, and only 2 parameters fully described in the schema, the description provides all necessary context. The tool's scope is narrow, and this description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that seasonId is the required parameter and part of the URL path, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, which already documents seasonId and sportId.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing single-season detail by seasonId, specifically key dates and game-count info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mlb_seasons and mlb_schedule by focusing on season metadata rather than listing all seasons or game schedules.

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 phrase 'Single season detail by seasonId' clearly signals when to use this tool—when you need key dates and game-count info for one specific season. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough among the mlb_* sibling tools.

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