get_seasonal_pitch_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data format, or whether it returns aggregated or raw metrics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Statcast pitch metrics' include, how data is returned, or handle edge cases like invalid years. Without annotations or output schema, more detail is needed to fully inform an agent.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'player's season', which hints at the 'player_id' and 'year' parameters, but doesn't explain what 'player_id' format to use (e.g., MLB ID) or that 'year' is optional with a default. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed Statcast pitch metrics for a player's season', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_game_pitch_metrics' (game-level) and 'get_player_seasonal_stats' (general stats). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_seasonal_splits' or 'get_seasonal_statistics', which might overlap in scope, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'get_game_pitch_metrics' for game-level data or 'get_player_seasonal_stats' for broader seasonal stats, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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