mlb: Search players

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to cover those. It adds that results include 'IDs, teams, and positions,' which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. The description complements annotations adequately.

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 is efficient and contains no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and result, earning its place without 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?

Given the low complexity of this search tool and the comprehensive annotations and schema, the description is mostly complete. It could briefly mention that the returned IDs are useful for subsequent player detail endpoints, but the current version is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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%, with both parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal information beyond stating the purpose of searching by name, but it does not provide new details about parameter values or formats beyond the schema.

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 searches for players by name and returns IDs, teams, and positions. The verb 'search' and resource 'players' are specific, and the distinction from sibling search tools (e.g., opendota_search_players) is evident due to the MLB context.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other MLB tools or search tools for different sports. The context implies it is for initial player discovery, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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