statcast_batter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively details the return payload ('every pitch the batter saw — pitch type, velocity, exit velocity...'), explaining the granularity and richness of data returned. It also clarifies the date range behavior (end_date defaults to start_date). Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read operation, though 'Get' implies this.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, return value details second, parameter specifications third, and use case last. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or wasted text. The Args block efficiently handles parameter documentation.

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 that an output schema exists (so full return value specification isn't required in text), the description provides an excellent preview of returned fields. It covers all parameters (compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions), explains the date logic, and provides the usage context. Complete for a query tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters with clear semantics: player_name includes a concrete example ('Aaron Judge'), and both date fields specify the exact format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and default behavior. This adds essential meaning missing from the structured schema.

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 opens with a precise action ('Get pitch-level Statcast data'), identifies the specific resource (pitch-level data), and scopes it to 'a specific batter in a date range.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling aggregation tools like 'batting_stats_date_range' (which likely returns summary stats) and 'statcast_pitcher' (which covers pitchers).

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 includes the line 'Great for analyzing a hitter's performance over a specific period,' which implies the use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like 'statcast_batter_expected_stats' or 'statcast_batter_exitvelo_barrels' for specific analyses, or when to use the broader 'statcast_search' instead.

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