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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by describing the shape of the returned rows and the minimum-games cutoff metadata. The deliberate exclusion of athlete identity is important behavioral context that prevents misuse of the output. It does not mention pagination, coverage limits, or whether all stats are always present.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return contents, then the exclusion, then the prerequisite — a logical order with no filler sentences. Slightly dense phrasing ("the leaderboard context") could be tightened, but every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, intentional exclusions, and ID-resolution prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to supply valid arguments; nothing material is left to guesswork.

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 100%, and the schema descriptions already say where teamId comes from and that sportSeasonId must match the exact team and level. The description reinforces the resolution ordering but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get MaxPreps team stat leaders") and immediately scopes the result to "one team season's stat-leader rows," then enumerates the row fields (stat name, header, value, rank, leaderboard context, minimum-games cutoffs). It also draws an explicit boundary against player-record tools by saying athlete identity is "deliberately excluded," so an agent can separate this from athlete-level leader tools 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite sequence: resolve teamId and sportSeasonId from maxpreps_team or maxpreps_team_schedule before calling. It also implies a when-not-to-use case by clarifying this reports statistics rather than player records. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for athlete-level leaders, so it is clear context without full exclusion routing.

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