mlb_team_personnel

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that no auth is needed and specifies the exact return shape ({roster:[{person, job, title}], teamId}), providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with three short lines each serving a purpose: defining the resource, stating the return shape, and noting auth requirements. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, auth requirements, and scope. It doesn't elaborate on date behavior or field meanings, but the schema handles parameter details. Given annotations and 100% schema coverage, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention the default behavior when date is omitted.

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% for both parameters (date and teamId), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool as providing a team's front-office/non-uniformed personnel, and the 'Returns' line confirms it's a retrieval operation. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool mlb_team_roster (uniformed players) by specifying 'non-uniformed personnel,' but lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List.'

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 vs alternatives like mlb_team_roster or mlb_team_coaches. The 'non-uniformed personnel' wording implies it's for front-office staff, but it doesn't state exclusions or name alternatives. Minimal usage context.

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