mlb_venues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format but does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. For a read tool, minimal behavioral context is provided.

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, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and input, the second provides the output structure. No extraneous 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers core functionality and return format. However, it lacks completeness by not documenting all parameters (season, hydrate) and does not address edge cases or limitations, which is a gap for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'venueIds' parameter (one or more IDs) but completely omits explanations for 'season' and 'hydrate'. This leaves two out of three parameters semantically undocumented.

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 it returns venue details for given venue IDs, including name, location, field/roof info, and specifies the output structure. It identifies the resource (venue) and action (get detail) distinctly.

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 by stating 'for one or more venueIds', but does not explicitly mention when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Since no direct sibling exists, the implied context is sufficient but not explicit.

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