statcast_pitcher_expected_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the return values (specific expected stats vs actual), notes the 'truncated leaderboard' behavior (explaining why to use player_name), and mentions the default value for minimum plate appearances. Missing only operational details like rate limits or error 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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return value specifics, an Args block documenting parameters, and a final use-case sentence. Every sentence adds value; no repetition of schema structure or tautology.

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 existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides complete coverage: it identifies the data source (Statcast), explains the specific metrics returned, documents all parameters (compensating for empty schema descriptions), and provides usage context for the target analysis (over/underperformance detection).

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 documenting all three parameters in the Args section: year includes an example (2024), min_plate_appearances clarifies 'PA against' (plate appearances against) and default (50), and player_name explains the behavior (avoids missing entries in truncated results) with an example ('Gerrit Cole').

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 the tool 'Get[s] expected stats allowed by pitchers from Statcast' with specific metrics (xBA, xSLG, xwOBA, xERA), distinguishing it from siblings like `statcast_pitcher` (general data) and `season_pitching_stats` (traditional stats) by emphasizing 'expected' versus 'actual' results and contact quality analysis.

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 clear context with 'Great for finding pitchers who outperformed or underperformed their contact quality,' indicating the analytical purpose. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs `expected_stats_batch` or `statcast_pitcher`), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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