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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-derivable context by stating "No upstream call is made" (a purely local lookup) and that values were cold-replay verified on a specific date and are pinned by exact-set tests. That provenance tells the agent the returned values are trustworthy and stable. The only wrinkle is the mild tension between "no upstream call" and openWorldHint=true, though that is far from a direct contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the inventory of value sets. Every clause carries distinct information, though the long comma-separated enumeration of six value sets is dense to scan and would read better as a list.

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 explain return structure, and it is complete for a zero-parameter local lookup: it names the source, guarantees no network call, and enumerates each value set including the scoreboard-context-to-id-kind mapping. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side. The description instead spends its words documenting the output value sets, which is the right allocation of effort for a parameterless lookup.

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 verb and resource ("Get MaxPreps closed request enum values") and then enumerates exactly which value sets come back: 53 state codes, 64 gender+sport tokens, three genders, three team levels, two sort orders, seven scoreboard contexts. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from data-fetching siblings like maxpreps_school_search or maxpreps_scoreboard, whose parameters these values feed.

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?

Usage is only implied: calling the enums "the closed request value set the MaxPreps routes validate locally" hints that these are the legal inputs for the other MaxPreps tools, but the description never states "call this before/alongside X" or names any alternative. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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