team_pitching

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

With no annotations available, the description itself must signal the operation, and 'summary' conveys a read-only aggregated result including rest days. It does not specify the return shape or what 'rest days' encompasses, but for a simple one-parameter query the core behavior is visible.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler; the resource, scope, and additional qualifier are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

The definition is minimally adequate for a trivial one-parameter summary: it states the output theme and team scope, but it leaves 'rest days' ambiguous and does not clarify the default null behavior or direct agents to sibling tools. Given no output schema or annotations, slightly more context would make it 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 coverage is 0% and the description only alludes to the parameter with 'a team's', adding no detail about accepted values, format, or the default null behavior. The parameter name 'team' is self-explanatory, but the low coverage requires more compensation than this provides.

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 phrase 'season pitching summary' identifies an aggregate data resource, and 'whole staff' distinguishes it from individual-pitcher tools like pitcher_profile and probable_pitcher. It lacks an explicit verb, so it is clear but not maximally strong.

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 the tool should be used when a team-level, season-wide pitching overview is needed, and 'whole staff' gestures toward why one would not use pitcher_profile. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or conditions, so this is implied rather than stated.

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