mlb_sports_players

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

The description adds the return structure, a size warning ('large'), and auth requirements, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or how the hydrate parameter affects the response, which would be useful.

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 three concise sentences, each with clear value: purpose, return shape/size, and auth. No redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The return structure and size warning compensate for the absence of an output schema. The tool is simple with strong annotation coverage, making it reasonably complete. Minor gaps include hydrate behavior and alternative tool references, but these do not undermine overall usability.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including sportId=1 for MLB and season year. The description repeats the sportId mapping but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 it returns all players for a sport/season, positioning it as a full catalogue for name-to-ID resolution. This differentiates it from narrower siblings like mlb_team_roster or mlb_player_search. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 implies the use case (full catalog lookup for a season) with clear context, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools with similar player data are not referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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