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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the substantive behavioral fact that this is a lookup/discovery call whose ids feed two other tools. It does not discuss caching, season volatility, or empty-result behavior, but for a read-only lookup with an output schema, the added value is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it gets, what it returns, and why an agent should call it. The scope and the downstream consumers are front-loaded with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return shapes, and annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, so the remaining burden is low and mostly met. The only gaps are edge behaviors such as what happens for a state/season with no groupings and whether ids are season-stable, which are minor for this tool class.

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 100%, with both required parameters documented ('state code from maxpreps-states', 'sport-season id for the ranked team season'), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only refers generically to 'a state season' and adds no format, sourcing, or constraint details beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is right.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get MaxPreps ranking groupings for a state season') and then enumerates exactly what a grouping contains: naming aliases, state divisions, associations, and designated market areas with their ids and URLs. This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from rankings-fetching siblings like maxpreps_team_rankings without opening a schema.

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?

It explicitly states its role as the 'discovery surface' for the sectionId, stateDivisionId, associationId, and dmaId values that maxpreps-scoreboard and maxpreps-team-rankings accept, which tells the agent precisely when to call it first. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that stateCode must come from maxpreps-states, which only the schema says), so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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