mlb_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation (listing teams) and returns a defined structure. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior with missing parameters beyond providing defaults.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the return format. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description covers the core purpose and return format, but omits details on optional parameters and edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for agents needing filtering.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Only `sportId` is mentioned in the text; `season`, `hydrate`, and `leagueIds` are left unexplained. This insufficiently guides parameter usage.

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 it is a 'Team catalogue' listing id, name, abbreviation, location, league/division, and home venue. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `mlb_team` (single team) and `mlb_teams_affiliates` by specifying the scope and data fields.

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 a specific usage hint: 'Pass sportId=1 for the 30 MLB clubs.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for filtered queries (e.g., `mlb_teams_stats`).

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