hitter_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists output categories. It says nothing about read-only status, data recency, interpretation of 'approach by count,' or any side effects, leaving an agent to guess at the call's semantics.

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?

At one short sentence, the text is brief and front-loads the resource type, but the opening phrase 'Hitter profile' largely repeats the tool name and terms like 'season line' and 'contact type' are unexpanded jargon. It is compact without being fully informative.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should state how to specify the batter and what shape the profile takes; it does neither. The overlap with sibling tools such as count_tendencies makes this ambiguity more costly.

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?

The input schema field name 'batter' is the only clue; the description never mentions the parameter, its accepted format, or how to identify a batter. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate and adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 identifies the resource as a batter-facing profile and enumerates its content categories: season line, approach by count, and contact type. This clearly separates it from pitcher_profile, but it lacks a true verb such as 'retrieve' and does not explicitly differentiate it from count_tendencies.

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 provided for when to call this tool rather than similar siblings such as count_tendencies, platoon_splits, or scout_report. The phrase 'Hitter profile' implies a general lookup, but no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.

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