mlb_team_alumni

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ({people:[{id, fullName, primaryPosition, mlbDebutDate}]}) and stating that no authentication is needed. This enhances the agent's understanding of expected output and access requirements.

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 exceptionally concise, using three short lines to convey purpose, return format, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core function and every sentence contributes value. No redundant information is present.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the return structure, auth requirement, and parameter scope. While there is no output schema, the inline return type covers this gap. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers parameter semantics. The only minor omission is explicit mention of pagination or limits, which is not critical for this simple read operation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (teamId, season, group) with their meaning and constraints. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but the mention of 'hitting/pitching/fielding' reinforces the group values already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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's function: retrieving former players (alumni) for a team, filtered by season and group (hitting/pitching/fielding). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_team_roster, which would focus on current players.

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 context by specifying the required dimensions (team, season, group) and identifies the group options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mlb_team_roster, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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