mlb_sports_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure and hints at large data ('large'). It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose and response fields. Still, it omits details like behavior regarding the hydrate parameter, rate limits, or pagination.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the tool's purpose and a key parameter hint, the second provides the return structure. No wasted words; front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and return fields but leaves gaps: the hydrate parameter behavior is undocumented, and there is no mention of pagination or performance implications beyond noting 'large'. It is complete enough for basic usage but not fully robust.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for sportId ('sportId=1 for MLB') and season implicitly ('for a season'), but the hydrate parameter is completely unexplained. This partial coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 the tool returns all players in a sport for a season ('full player catalogue') with a specific purpose of name-to-ID resolution. It explicitly mentions sportId=1 for MLB, which distinguishes it from generic player lookup tools like mlb_player or mlb_people among siblings.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to retrieve the full player catalogue for a season and sport, especially for name-to-ID resolution. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., mlb_player_search for filtered queries), missing some guidance.

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