mlb_umpires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the return shape, which are useful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the date parameter is optional or how 'current' is determined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, using only three short lines to convey the purpose, return format, and authentication requirement. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the core elements: what it returns (roster with person, jobType, job) and that no auth is needed. It does not explain the exact meaning of 'jobType' or 'job', but the provided return shape suffices for basic use. It could benefit from mentioning how the optional 'date' and 'sportId' parameters affect the result, but the overall completeness is adequate.

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's use of 'Current' adds slight context to the date parameter's default behavior, but it does not go beyond what the schema already provides for either parameter. No extra meaning is added.

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 resource as a 'Current umpire crew list' and provides a return shape, making the tool's purpose understandable. It lacks an explicit verb but the 'Returns:' line clarifies it is a data retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mlb_official_scorers by focusing specifically on umpires.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'Current umpire crew list' implies it is for the current umpire crew, but it does not explain scenarios like historical queries or how to choose between this and related MLB tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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