mlb_sports

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

The description discloses that no authentication is needed, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also specifies the return shape and provides meaningful interpretation of the sportId values, adding transparency. With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present, the description adds additional value without contradiction.

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, using only three short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers the return format and authentication, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes valuable information.

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 with one optional parameter, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, return structure, and auth. While it omits potential edge cases like empty results or pagination, these are unlikely to be significant for such a tool, and the annotations plus return format provide sufficient context.

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?

The input schema only says the parameter 'Filter to one sport', but the description adds crucial semantic detail by explaining that 1 means MLB and other values correspond to MiLB, college, or international levels. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description, significantly improving parameter 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 clearly identifies the tool as a sport catalogue and a sportId lookup, with the specific mapping for MLB. It distinguishes itself from other MLB tools by focusing on the sport-level lookup rather than teams, leagues, or divisions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage context is implied through the phrase 'sportId lookup' and the description of sport IDs, making it clear the tool is for resolving sport identifiers. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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