mlb_teams

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds the fact that authentication is not needed and the specific return shape. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe pagination or rate limits, which are likely unnecessary for a small catalogue.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and fields, followed by usage guidance, return format, and auth. Every sentence contributes new information without redundancy.

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 listing tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it returns, how to invoke it for the common case, and that no auth is needed. The lack of pagination or filter examples is acceptable given the low complexity.

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?

The schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, and the description reinforces sportId's role by giving a concrete value ('sportId=1'). It does not elaborate on season, hydrate, or leagueIds, but the schema already documents these sufficiently.

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 a 'team catalogue' listing id, name, abbreviation, location, league/division, and home venue. The added 'Pass sportId=1 for the 30 MLB clubs' narrows the scope and distinguishes it from related MLB team tools like mlb_teams_history or mlb_teams_stats.

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?

It provides explicit instructions for the primary use case (sportId=1 for MLB) and notes that auth is not required. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as mlb_team for a single team or other sport-specific team tools, though the sibling list implies a generic catalogue purpose.

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