statcast_pitcher_exitvelo_barrels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what metrics are returned and adds interpretive context ('Lower values indicate a pitcher who limits hard contact'), but omits operational details like rate limits, data freshness, or caching behavior.

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?

Well-structured with clear front-loading: purpose statement, return value description, behavioral interpretation, parameter documentation (Args), and use case. Every sentence provides distinct value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well-documented in the description, the coverage is strong. Minor gap: could explicitly reference the sibling batter tool for clarity, but the pitcher/batter distinction is implied through 'allowed by' language.

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%, requiring the description to compensate fully. The Args section documents all three parameters (year, min_batted_ball_events, player_name) with types implied via examples, constraints noted ('Optional'), and defaults mentioned ('default 50'), completely filling the schema documentation gap.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('exit velocity and barrel rate allowed by pitchers'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling batter tool (statcast_batter_exitvelo_barrels) by specifying 'allowed by pitchers' (pitcher perspective).

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?

Provides implied usage context ('Great for finding pitchers who suppress hard contact most effectively') but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternative tools like the batter variant or other pitching stats tools.

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