Search MLB players

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains that the tool returns ids and that those ids are meant to be passed to other tools, plus it flags ambiguity handling.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the workflow cue is placed second without padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers what the tool does and how its output integrates with sibling tools, leaving no essential gap for correct invocation.

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 both the name and limit parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline expectation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find MLB player ids by name. This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling stats/standings tools by emphasizing that the output is an id, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast 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 gives clear workflow guidance: use the returned id with other tools when a name is ambiguous. This implies the tool should be used as a resolver before other baseball tools, though it does not state when not to use it or name a specific alternative.

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