mlb_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format and mentions sorting/limiting, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, required permissions, or rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially transparent.

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, with two sentences and a return type example. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the return type formatting could be slightly more structured.

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 tool has 8 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate context for common use cases but lacks details on all parameters, pagination, or edge cases. It is moderately 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?

The description adds meaning for parameters like group, stats, limit, and sortStat by mentioning groups, types, sorting, and limiting. However, it does not explain season, teamId, sportId, or playerPool. With 0% schema coverage, this is a good but not complete compensation.

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 is a season stats query across players, specifying groups (hitting/pitching/fielding) and types (season, career, byDateRange). It also mentions sorting and limiting for top-N tables, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_player_stats or mlb_leaders.

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 usage for aggregate stats across players with sorting and limiting, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Given many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would be helpful.

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