mlb_get_teams

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

Annotations are absent, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. It only states the straightforward listing purpose without additional context.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes relevant return fields. It contains no unnecessary words or information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description specifies the returned fields. It lacks information on pagination, ordering, error handling, or whether the tool returns all teams or only those matching optional parameters. Given the low complexity, it is minimally complete.

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% (both parameters are documented). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('MLB teams') along with specific fields returned (IDs, names, venues, divisions, leagues). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_get_team_roster which focuses on roster details.

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 tool versus alternatives such as mlb_get_team_roster or mlb_get_game. There are no explicit contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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