mlb_team_coaches

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

Adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: no authentication needed, and the return structure is explicitly outlined. The annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description complements this without contradiction.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes return format and auth. The final line about espn_core_call is somewhat vague but doesn't add significant bloat.

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?

The description covers the what, the return shape, and auth, but lacks any usage guidance or differentiation from sibling tools. Given no output schema, the return format line is helpful, yet overall completeness is only partial.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description doesn't add extra semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline.

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 identifies the resource as a team's coaching staff with specific roles (manager, hitting/pitching/bench coaches). It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' but the content and return schema make the 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other MLB team tools (e.g., mlb_team_roster, mlb_team_personnel). The note 'Also answers this: espn_core_call' is cryptic and does not clarify selection criteria or exclusions.

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