mlb_get_league_leaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'get' which implies read-only, but does not disclose other traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or the nature of returned data (e.g., pagination).

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific examples. No unnecessary words or 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?

For a simple read tool with complete parameter schemas, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema, the description could have added more context about the return format (e.g., player stats structure). Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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% (each parameter is described). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema examples and the list of categories. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'Get league stat leaders for categories...' with specific examples like home runs, batting average, ERA, etc. It distinguishes the tool from sibling MLB tools (e.g., mlb_get_standings, mlb_get_player) by focusing on league-wide leaderboards.

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 implies usage for retrieving top performers in stat categories, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, such as prerequisites or alternatives. No exclusions or sibling differentiation is provided beyond the list of examples.

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