mlb: Get game

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., potential large response size, rate limits). With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 output schema, the description usefully lists the three key data components (plays, box score, line score). However, it could be more complete by noting that other game details are included. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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?

Only one parameter (game_pk) with a clear schema description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add more, but it also doesn't elaborate on how to obtain the game_pk (e.g., from schedule). Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('detailed game data'), and the scope ('including plays, box score, and line score'). It distinguishes itself from granular MLB siblings that focus on individual components (e.g., mlb_get_game_boxscore, mlb_get_game_play_by_play).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this comprehensive tool versus the more specific sibling tools for box score, line score, or play-by-play. The description implies comprehensiveness but does not explicitly state that partial data can be obtained from siblings.

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