mlb_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation by returning data but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The return format is given, but beyond that, behavior is opaque.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the return format listed separately. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly improved by explicitly naming the parameters in context.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and possible values. It partially compensates with the return structure but leaves the agent uninformed about the 'season' and 'hydrate' parameters, reducing completeness.

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 coverage is 0% with no descriptions on any of the three parameters. The description mentions 'by id' but does not explicitly link to the teamId parameter, and it omits explanations for the optional 'season' and 'hydrate' parameters. While the return structure is provided, parameter semantics are under-explained.

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 'Single team detail by id' and lists the fields returned, making the tool's purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'mlb_teams' which likely returns multiple teams, missing an opportunity for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'mlb_teams' or 'mlb_team_roster'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or usage hints, leaving the agent to infer context solely from the tool name.

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