team_season_pitching_stats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses data source priority (FanGraphs primary, BRef fallback), filtering logic differences (min_innings ignored for BRef), and result interpretation methodology (GS sorting for rotation/bullpen). Does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, preventing a 5.

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?

Uses structured Args section with backtick formatting for code examples. Every sentence adds value: data source disclosure, parameter semantics, usage guidance, and result interpretation. No wasted words despite comprehensive coverage.

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 output schema exists (per context signals), description appropriately focuses on conceptual behavior, data sources, and usage patterns rather than return value structure. Covers all 4 parameters comprehensively and explains business logic (rotation/bullpen split).

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 full compensation. Description excellently documents all 4 parameters: team (3-letter abbrev with examples), season (year format), min_innings (default value and behavioral note about BRef ignorance), and player_name (optional with example).

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?

Description opens with specific verb+resource ('Full-season actual pitching stats for one MLB team') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'season_pitching_stats' by contrasting team-specific vs league-wide scope. Clear differentiation of rotation vs bullpen adds further specificity.

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?

Explicitly states when-not-to-use and alternative: 'For league-wide pitching only, use `season_pitching_stats`' provides clear guidance. Also clarifies FanGraphs vs Baseball Reference fallback behavior and how to interpret results (splitting rotation/bullpen via GS sorting).

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