mlb_team_leaders

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful context: 'Auth: none needed' and a structured return shape. It does not go into further detail about edge cases or pagination, but given the strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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: two short sentences plus a return type and auth note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The return format is clearly laid out, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear return structure and example categories. It does not explain all possible categories or game types, but these are documented in the schema. The overall information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by providing example category names (homeRuns, era) and clarifies that limit is 'Top-N' in the schema. This is a marginal addition beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 a team's statistical leaders for specified categories in a season. It is specific about the resource (team) and the operation (leaders), and the examples (homeRuns, era) clarify the expected categories. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool mlb_leaders, though the word 'team's' implies the difference.

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: when you need a team's statistical leaders for given categories. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like mlb_leaders for league-wide leaders. There are no clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied team-level scope.

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