mlb_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the exact return shape ({stats:[...]}), explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed', and mentioning sort/limit behavior. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 covering purpose, return structure, and auth, all front-loaded and free of fluff. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the return structure is presented cleanly.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a concrete return structure, effectively serving as a mini output schema. It also notes auth requirements. However, for an 8-parameter tool, it lacks details on default season behavior, how byDateRange works with other filters, or examples of common queries, which would help an agent invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 reiterates the group and type options and mentions sort/limit, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not clarify interactions or default behaviors for parameters like season or 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?

The description clearly states 'Season stats query across players' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates groups (hitting/pitching/fielding) and stat types (season, career, byDateRange, ...). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_player_stats and mlb_leaders, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 that this is for querying stats across players, with sort/limit for top-N tables, implying use for aggregate comparisons rather than single-player lookups. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to mlb_player_stats for individual player stats, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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