mlb_teams_affiliates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying 'Auth: none needed' and explicitly showing the return structure, which helps set expectations about the output shape. It does not hide any surprising behavior, and it contradicts no 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return-type template, and an auth note. Every line serves a distinct purpose and no words are wasted. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and auth requirements. There is no output schema, so the inline return definition compensates well. It could have mentioned that teamIds is required or explained the season parameter's role, but the schema already documents those, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters (season, hydrate, teamIds). The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The return-field names (e.g., parentOrgId) are self-explanatory but not elaborated further.

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 what the tool does: it returns a club's affiliated teams across minor-league levels. The 'Returns:' clause with a concrete object structure reinforces that this is a retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mlb_teams (which presumably lists major league teams) by its explicit focus on affiliates.

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 usage (when you need a club's minor-league affiliates), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like mlb_team_roster or mlb_teams_history. No exclusions or 'use instead' notes are provided. The 'Auth: none needed' note is a permission guideline, not a usage-vs-alternative guideline.

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