mlb_teams_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds 'Auth: none needed' plus a precise return shape. This goes beyond the annotations by telling the agent what response to expect, though it does not cover error cases or open-world behavior.

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 front-loaded: purpose, return shape, and auth are each conveyed in a single line. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 read-only historical lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return fields and auth requirement, making it largely self-contained. Minor gaps such as acceptable season format or invalid-team behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 descriptions for teamIds, startSeason, and endSeason, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond 'one or more teams' and the return structure; it does not clarify season formatting or ID types.

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 opens with a specific resource and data scope: 'Franchise history (name/league/division changes over time) for one or more teams.' The 'Returns' line confirms the tool's purpose. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like mlb_teams or mlb_team, which would present current team information.

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 phrase 'Franchise history... changes over time' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mlb_teams or mlb_team, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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