mlb_umpires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is not the sole source of behavioral context. It adds 'Auth: none needed' and the return structure, which are useful. It does not disclose other behaviors like default date handling or pagination, but given the annotations, the added context is adequate without contradiction.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Current umpire crew list'). The return format and auth note are valuable and concise. The 'Also answers this' line is slightly cryptic but does not add unnecessary length, so it earns a 4.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description provides the return shape and auth requirements. The meaning of 'current' and how the date parameter interacts could be clarified, but the schema covers those fields. For a simple read-only list tool, the description is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—both parameters ('date' and 'sportId') are described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Current umpire crew list.' It specifies the action (list) and resource (umpires), and includes the return format, which adds clarity. The name 'mlb_umpires' implies MLB scope, and it is distinct from sibling tools like mlb_official_scorers and mlb_datacasters, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 offers minimal usage guidance. It includes 'Also answers this: pl_match_officials,' which hints that this tool can handle queries intended for that sibling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other umpire-related tools or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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