get_mlb_search_teams

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 mentions the tool searches and returns results, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), how results are structured, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence defines the tool, and subsequent lines efficiently document parameters and return type 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits) and doesn't explain return values since the output schema handles that. For a search tool with two parameters, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'team_name' accepts 'name or ID' and 'search_key' can be 'name', 'id', or 'all', which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID format) or default behavior for 'search_key', leaving gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some but not complete semantics.

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's purpose: 'Search for teams by name or ID.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('teams'), and search criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_mlb_teams' (likely lists all teams) and 'get_mlb_team_info' (likely gets details for a specific team), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'get_mlb_teams' (which might return all teams without filtering) or 'get_mlb_team_info' (which might require a specific team ID). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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