mlb_teams_affiliates

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns a list of teams, but omits whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or reflects current or historical data. Important gaps exist.

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 concise with two sentences, covering purpose and return format. However, it could be better structured by including parameter details or a usage example. No redundant information.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain input parameters, data scope (e.g., single season vs. all time), or how to interpret results. Much additional context is needed for effective use.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (teamIds, season, hydrate) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what teamIds represent (major league team IDs?), how season filters results, or what hydrate does. This severely hampers correct 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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning a club's affiliated teams across minor-league levels. It specifies the return format with fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mlb_team (individual team) and mlb_teams (list of major league teams).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mlb_team_roster or mlb_teams_stats. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the brief description.

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