list_throws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior is covered. The description contributes one genuine extra trait, 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about pagination behavior, the default limit of 50, or how the date window interacts with the limit.

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 no padding. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the parameter hints follow immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a five-parameter listing tool with zero schema documentation, the absence of date format guidance for start/end and any note on limit bounds or pagination leaves the agent short of what it needs to call this correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully supplies value domains for two filters (primary_type: Backhand/Forehand; throw_type: Hyzer/Flat) where the schema has no enums, but start, end, and limit are completely undocumented and the date format is unknown.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List TechDisc throws') plus an ordering guarantee, which is more than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from data-oriented siblings like throw_stats or throw_trends, so an agent must infer that this returns raw records rather than aggregates.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The presence of throw_stats, throw_trends, and throw_export_status as siblings makes the absence of routing information a real gap.

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