mlb_team_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it retrieves data (read-only implied), returns a dictionary with specific structure or None if no game found, and handles an optional date parameter with a default. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, but covers core behavior adequately for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args and Returns sections are structured efficiently, with each sentence adding value (e.g., examples, defaults, structure details). No wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains purpose, parameters, return values (including structure and None case), and usage context. No output schema exists, so describing the return structure is necessary and well-done.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents both parameters: team_name (name, example) and date (optional, format, default). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining usage and format, which is essential given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'results (scoring plays and highlights) for a specific MLB team's most recent game.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for a specific team's most recent game, unlike get_daily_results (likely broader) and get_mlb_schedule (likely schedule-focused).

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 provides clear context: use this to get results for a specific team's most recent game. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity implies it's not for general results or schedules, which aligns with sibling tool names. No misleading guidance is present.

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