mlb_teams_history

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only states the return structure. It doesn't mention that the tool is read-only, whether it accepts single or multiple teams, or any rate limiting, pagination, or error handling.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes a return format that could be integrated more efficiently. Still, no unnecessary words.

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?

Returns a structured object which helps, but missing parameter explanations, examples, and error states. For a simple convenience tool, it suffices but leaves room for improvement.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions teamIds as required but doesn't specify ID format (e.g., numeric). It doesn't explain that startSeason/endSeason filter the history by season range. The return structure does not clarify 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?

Description clearly specifies the tool returns franchise history (name/league/division changes) for one or more teams. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_teams (current team list) and mlb_teams_stats (statistical data).

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, no mention of prerequisites or constraints. The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it over other team-related tools.

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