get_multiple_mlb_player_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] player stats' but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description lacks behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args' section listing parameters with brief semantics, and a 'Returns' section. There's minimal waste, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels add slight redundancy. Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and no annotations, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: dict') reduces the need to explain return values, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps for a statistical query tool.

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 lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Stat group (e.g., hitting, pitching)'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide full details like valid values for 'group' or 'type', or how 'player_ids' are formatted, leaving some ambiguity. With 0% coverage, this is a moderate improvement but incomplete.

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: 'Get player stats by comma separated player_ids, group, type, season, and optional eventType.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('player stats'), and key parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mlb_player_info' or 'get_statcast_batter', which likely serve different statistical purposes.

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. With many sibling tools for MLB data (e.g., 'get_mlb_player_info', 'get_statcast_batter'), there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or when it's preferred. The description merely lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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