mlb: Get game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and reproducibility profile is covered. The description adds one useful nugget beyond that: the data comes from the 'live feed', implying freshness/live-updating rather than archival. It gives no detail on response size or cost despite being an aggregate endpoint.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is compact, though it spends its word budget enumerating content that the sibling tools already own rather than clarifying scope.

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 2-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a rough sense of the returned payload, which is adequate. It omits the one thing an agent most needs here — how this aggregate relates to the granular boxscore/linescore/play-by-play siblings.

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 both game_pk and fields are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter usage (e.g., what 'fields' filtering does), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get detailed game data') and enumerates the payload (plays, box score, line score), so the agent knows this is an aggregate game view. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling mlb_get_game_boxscore, mlb_get_game_linescore, and mlb_get_game_play_by_play tools that carve out the very same content.

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 and no named alternative. Because the description lists 'plays, box score, and line score' — each of which has its own dedicated sibling tool — the agent is left to guess whether this is the superset call or a redundant one.

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