mlb_teams_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and explicitly shows the return shape '{stats:[...]}', which provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description supplies a return shape. Combined with the highly descriptive parameter schema and read-only annotations, it gives the agent everything needed to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying 'season + group' for filtering and 'Sort + limit for top-N' for sortStat/limit, which enriches the bare schema definitions.

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 uses specific language: 'Aggregate stats across all teams' and 'league-wide team leaderboard by season + group.' It clearly distinguishes itself from team-specific tools like mlb_team_stats by emphasizing the aggregate, league-wide scope.

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?

It clearly implies its use case: retrieving aggregate team statistics for a given season and group, with sorting and limiting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from team-specific or player-specific stat tools.

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