mlb_team_personnel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and shows the return structure, which is helpful. However, the cryptic line 'Also answers this: espn_core_call' is ambiguous and may confuse rather than inform. It does not contradict annotations, but the added behavioral context is limited.

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 short but includes an unexplained note about espn_core_call that adds noise without value. While the core definition is efficient, the cryptic line detracts from clarity and wastes a sentence.

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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides a return structure and auth requirement. It is mostly complete, but the ambiguous espn_core_call note slightly undermines completeness and clarity.

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%, with both parameters documented (date format and teamId required in URL path). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score.

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 returns a team's front-office / non-uniformed personnel, and it specifies the return structure with roster items and team ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_team_roster (players), mlb_team_coaches, and mlb_team_alumni.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mlb_team_roster or mlb_team_coaches. It neither mentions exclusions nor context for choosing this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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