pitcher_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what data is included but does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires a specific season context, whether it returns historical or current data, or how the profile is computed. The description is a content summary rather than a behavioral contract.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the key data dimensions. Every phrase adds information, and there is no filler. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the main content areas well. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose return format, time range, or whether the profile is computed from current season or career data. The missing behavioral context prevents a higher score.

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 does not explain the 'pitcher' parameter format (e.g., name vs. ID), but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description's listed dimensions imply the parameter selects which pitcher's profile to return. This is adequate but not rich.

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 names a specific resource (pitcher) and lists concrete data dimensions (season line, stamina by pitch count, first-pitch strike rate, count behaviour, batted-ball mix). It is clear enough to distinguish from hitter_profile and scout_report, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 this is the tool to use for a pitcher's season-level and count-level profile, but it does not state when to prefer it over scout_report, probable_pitcher, or count_tendencies. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the listed data dimensions.

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