mlb: Get player stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no note on whether results are paginated, how large gameLog/yearByYear responses are, or whether season is required for certain stats_type values.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It could carry more content without becoming bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For a 5-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the required operational content is largely in the schema. However, the description omits what the response looks like and how stat_type/group/season interact, which an agent needs to call this correctly on the first try.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'stat type and group' but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g. that season matters for 'season' but not 'career') beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (player statistics) with the two discriminating axes named (stat type and group). An agent can distinguish it from mlb_get_player or mlb_get_league_leaders, but the description never names those siblings or states the distinction explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a player_id from mlb_search_players), and no indication of when to prefer this over mlb_get_player or mlb_get_league_leaders. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a player'.

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