mlb_team_uniforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return structure and stating that no auth is needed. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus a compact return type illustration. Every element serves a purpose—resource, scope, return shape, and auth requirements—with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides the return structure, which helps the agent anticipate results. It does not explain the behavior of the optional 'season' parameter (e.g., default handling), but overall it is reasonably complete for a simple lookup 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%, with both parameters described ('Team id(s).' and 'Season year.'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states the resource ('Uniform assets / descriptions') and scope ('for one or more teams'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mlb_team_roster or mlb_teams. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve,' making it slightly less direct.

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 use when uniform assets are needed and notes that no authentication is required, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling alternatives are mentioned.

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