mlb_team_stats

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds useful behavioral context by providing the exact return structure and noting that no authentication is needed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs covering purpose, return shape, and authentication. Every sentence earns its place, with the Returns block providing essential structural detail without wasteful elaboration.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by outlining the return structure. It covers team-level scope, grouping, stat types, and auth. It does not detail the nested 'stat' object, but the overview is sufficient for a moderate-complexity data retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description marginally reinforces the meanings of 'group' and 'stat type' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'One team's aggregate stats' and specifies the key dimensions: season, group (hitting/pitching/fielding), and stat type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mlb_team (team info) and mlb_player_stats (player-level) by emphasizing team-level aggregate data.

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 when to use this tool: when you need aggregated stats for a single team across specified seasons and groups. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'One team's aggregate stats' gives clear context compared to other team- or player-focused tools.

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