mlb_venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds an explicit 'Auth: none needed' and the return shape. This is useful behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, and there is no 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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs with a clear return type and auth status. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what it does and what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 venue lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and auth requirements. It does not cover edge cases like invalid IDs or pagination, but given the simplicity of the tool and the openWorldHint annotation, this is sufficient.

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% — all three parameters (venueIds, season, hydrate) have descriptions. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning; it just restates that venueIds are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 (venues) and the input (venueIds), and the return fields are listed. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and there is no direct comparison to other MLB tools, but the purpose is unambiguous for a venue lookup.

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 implies usage: when you need venue details for one or more venue IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives from the sibling list (e.g., mlb_teams for venue info via team endpoints). It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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