mlb_seasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: the exact return shape with field names, the fact that no auth is needed, and the sportId requirement. This is valuable transparency for an agent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clear return shape, and an auth note. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds 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 simple read-only catalogue tool, the description covers the key aspects: return fields, required sportId, and auth. It does not explicitly state that omitting 'season' returns all seasons, but the plural 'seasons' and return shape imply this. Minor gap, but otherwise complete.

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%, with both parameters already described ('Filter to one season year' and 'Sport id (1 = MLB)'). The description adds little beyond 'Pass sportId=1', which is already in the schema. Baseline 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?

Description states 'Season catalogue with key dates', which clearly identifies the resource and the type of data returned. It is not fully differentiated from sibling tools like mlb_seasons_all or mlb_season, but the plural form and mention of 'catalogue' imply a list of seasons.

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 gives explicit instruction to 'Pass sportId=1', which is a key usage requirement. It provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate (retrieving season dates), but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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